Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty recently signed in Washington.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I attended the signing of the treaty which took place on the Israel-Jordan border. It was a very moving occasion. The treaty is important and courageous and the British Government applaud it.

Mrs. Kennedy: Although we all welcome the signing of the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, does the Minister share our sense of disappointment at Syria's recent failure to condemn terrorism and to enter into direct negotiations with Israel? What measures has the Minister taken to encourage Syria to cease its sponsorship of terrorism in that region and to enter into the talks?

Mr. Hogg: Three weeks ago I had the opportunity of talking to President Assad of Syria on the importance of a comprehensive peace treaty with Israel. I stressed that it is an opportunity not to be missed. I believe that Syria is intent on peace and that Israel is as well. The problem is which will be the first to start the process. It is the unwillingness of the Syrians to embark on bilateral talks that I find most troubling.

Mr. John Marshall: In view of the treaty between Israel and Jordan and as it is many years since there was a state visit to Jordan, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it is high time that there was an official state visit to Israel by Her Majesty the Queen?

Mr. Hogg: That sounds a splendid idea.

Mr. Janner: In recognising that peace throughout the middle east is important, did the Minister meet with Mr. Nashashibi, the Palestinian Finance Minister? If so, and even if not, will he consider how Britain can help the Palestinians to re-establish themselves and their administration, police and education, because without that the entire process may collapse?

Mr. Hogg: Indeed, I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Nashashibi about three weeks ago when he called on me in London. We discussed what the Government could do to assist in the Gaza strip and in the territories. I said that we had already contributed or were intending

to contribute £75 million over three years. I drew his attention in particular to the recent grant of £5 million, of which £3 million was for the Palestinian police force.

European Union

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about action being taken by the United Kingdom Government to encourage further enlargement of the European Union to include countries in central and eastern Europe.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We support the enlargement of the European Union to include the associated countries of central and eastern Europe. We are working closely with the German presidency to ensure that a substantial package of measures to help these countries prepare for full membership will be ready for agreement at the Essen European Council on 9-10 December.

Mr. Thompson: When my right hon. Friend attends the summit in Essen next month, will he emphasise the benefits, especially to national and international security, of the enlargement of the Union to include eastern European countries? Will he urge examination—and, where necessary, reform—of the outdated institutions and structures within the Union, for example, the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Hurd: It is hard to imagine the CAP in anything like its present form being extended to the new central and eastern European countries that we hope will join the EU. They simply could not afford it. The reforms that are already under way need to go a good deal further before we could envisage a common policy that would include those countries. The same is true of the structure plans.

Mr. Jim Marshall: In future enlargement discussions, will candidate countries be encouraged to join all the institutions, including associated institutions such as the Western European Union?

Mr. Hurd: That is up to those countries. It is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister means when he talks about a flexible Europe. At the moment, Ireland is a full member of the EU, but not of the WEU—the defence organisation. I suspect that that will be true of Austria next year and probably of Finland. Those countries that join the EU can, if they wish, become members of the WEU, but they do not have to do so.

Mr. Dykes: Does the Foreign Secretary find it interesting that, coming back to the framework of the EU policies, without a single exception, all the existing or future, potential or actual applicants for membership, accept the acquis communautaire in all its aspects, Maastricht, Maastricht stage 2 and the future policies


probably developing out of the 1996 conference? Is not that encouraging and will the United Kingdom Government do the same thing?

Mr. Hurd: We are not committed for the future and the applicant states were not in such a strong position as we have been as regards the social chapter.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Foreign Secretary have any view on whether the change in portfolios of the Commission this week has strengthened or weakened the progress towards enlargement? Does he recall the Prime Minister describing Mr. Jacques Santer as a reconciler and a healer—the right man for the right job at the right time? As the British Conservative Commissioner is the only one dissatisfied with his new job, would the Foreign Secretary care to repeat that description today and can he carry Sir Leon Brittan with him in that view? Or did not the events of last weekend confirm that the Prime Minister at Corfu picked the wrong fight over the wrong job?

Mr. Hurd: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his portfolio and on the brio with which he has embarked on his job. I look forward to many such exchanges in the future. Whether he will prove to be the right man in the right job, we will know as time passes. I am sorry to read that, like Sir Leon Brittan, he is a little disappointed at the way in which things have turned out, but I hope that he will reconcile himself to the position that he has.
I do not have any doubts about the views of Mr. Van Den Broek on these matters. I have known him for a long time and I do not have any doubt that the decisions that we have taken already on enlargement, on which we have touched already, will be continued. I do not have any worries about that. It is a pity that Leon Brittan, with his experience and achievements in this particular area, could not continue in it, but the essential thing so far as he and Britain are concerned is that he continues to hold the external trade portfolio.

"Partnership for Peace"

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the development of the NATO "Partnership for Peace" proposals, including practical co-operation.

Mr. Skinner: He is the only Minister with a clean pair of hands.

Mr. Hurd: I wish that the hon. Member would stop being so polite. It is extremely worrying.
"Partnership for Peace" is developing well. Partners have established offices at NATO headquarters and SHAPE.
The first military exercise under "Partnership for Peace", Co-operative Bridge, took place in Poland from 12 to 16 September, involving forces from 13 alliance and partner countries. Since then there have been two further exercises under "Partnership for Peace", Co-operative Venture, from 29 September to 7 October, and Co-operative Spirit, from 24 to 28 October. British forces took part in all three exercises.

Mrs. Lait: I thank my right hon. Friend for news of that encouraging process. I assure him that I do not treat this matter lightly.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the volatile nature of many of the eastern European countries is such that they need to be drawn swiftly into the military and political ambit of NATO? Can he give me some idea of the progress made towards common standards?

Mr. Hurd: We see "Partnership for Peace" as a good idea in itself and we are delighted that it has had such good take-up from our former adversaries in the Warsaw pact, including Russia. I hope that my original answer showed the progress made on that. It may lead forward in some cases to the expansion of NATO, but the timing of that remains to be considered. I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to do everything that we can to show those who were our adversaries to the east in the Warsaw pact that for them NATO is not a hostile organisation and "Partnership for Peace" shows the practical ways in which that can be proved.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: But is not there an eloquent example of practical co-operation rather nearer to home in the proposal that the Royal Air Force and the French air force should now indulge in operational co-operation? Is not such practical co-operation essential to achieve an effective European defence, as the right hon. Gentleman clearly envisaged in his recent speech to the Franco-British Council?

Mr. Hurd: I am certainly in favour of close military co-operation between ourselves and the French. We see that in action in Bosnia at the moment and it is extremely valuable. We have not yet concluded arrangements for the combined air forces group but may do so at the Anglo-French summit soon. It will simply be a joint planning capability, which could draw together the air assets from Britain and France for use in suitable operations on which we agree.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not important that "Partnership for Peace" be not just a question of hanging around in antechambers but that it provides an opportunity for NATO applicant countries eventually to become full participants in the alliance? In that context, is it not vital that no obstacles be placed in their path, such as that for the right of collective security, and that they must make commensurate contributions, because smaller countries are the most vulnerable and needful of the alliance's collective security arrangements?

Mr. Hurd: I believe that some nations currently involved in "Partnership for Peace" will become full members of NATO, as my hon. Friend wants. That will be up to them and to us. Certainly we are not closing that door.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that an orderly and verified reduction of the bloated armament industries of eastern Europe is essential to achieve the objectives of "Partnership for Peace"? Does he see NATO and also the European Union playing a role in that achievement?

Mr. Hurd: The countries of eastern Europe and certainly Russia need to convert their industries, which are overbalanced on the military side, to civilian use. They find that difficult. We can help to some extent, but it is not so much a matter for NATO as for individual effort.

Mr. Churchill: Although it is clear that any extension of NATO's nuclear guarantee can be done only with great


care and circumspection, does my right hon. Friend agree that countries that were our allies during the second world war and which were cut off from their alliances only because they were occupied by the Red army—specifically Poland and the Czech and Slovak
republics—should be put on a fast track for NATO membership, and that Hungary should be included among them?

Mr. Hurd: It is likely that the countries that my hon. Friend mentioned, given the history that he described and their present policies, will want to become full members of NATO and will succeed. We and they must consider the timing—no dates have been fixed. Meanwhile, it is important that they all make full use of "Partnership for Peace", which offers experience of joint exercises such as those that I described, and joint training and planning.

European Parliament

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the future democratisation of the European Parliament.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): All present Members of the European Parliament are already directly elected. MEPs who will represent acceding states will in the first instance be appointed by their national Parliaments, but they will be subject to direct election within two years of the accession of those states.

Mr. Williams: In view of the difficulties that surrounded the appointment of the President of the European Union earlier this year and, more recently, Sir Leon Brittan's responsibilities, where does the balance of the argument lie in terms of appointing a President of the European Parliament? Is there an argument for MEPs to be given the responsibility of electing their own President, and for that person then to appoint his own European Commissioners, as happens with every other directly elected Parliament?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman misses the importance of the role of sovereign states. The current arrangements are perfectly satisfactory.

Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware of Malta's strong desire to play its full part in the European Parliament following its successful application for European Union membership? What is the Government's policy on the Maltese application, and when is it likely that consideration will be given to applications from micro-states?

Mr. Davis: The Government of the United Kingdom take a positive view of the application of Malta, and, of course, after its subsequent accession, whenever it occurs, one will foresee a point at which it is properly represented in the European Parliament. The intergovernmental conference, at its meeting in Corfu, issued a statement on that. We stand entirely by it.

Subsidiarity

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has

taken to implement the principle of subsidiarity in the levels of decision-making within the European Union and the United Kingdom.

Mr. David Davis: The Edinburgh European Council established clear guidelines for the operation of subsidiarity within the European Union, and the Government have pursued the application of that subsidiarity with great vigour in conjunction with other Governments and the Commission. The principle of subsidiarity does not apply to the internal arrangements within member states.

Mr. Jones: In his recent book entitled "The Europe We Need", Sir Leon Brittan describes subsidiarity as something that should
allow for the ebb and flow of responsibility between regional, national and European authorities.
Does the Minister agree?

Mr. Davis: That is a very thinly veiled expression of the hon. Gentleman's well-known views on the position of Wales within the United Kingdom. If I may, I will address that point directly, because it is predicated on three wrong precepts: first, legally, because it was made very clear at the meeting of the Heads of Government at Birmingham, and at other times, that subsidiarity does not apply within states, and that it is up to the states themselves to decide the distribution of power within the states. Secondly, there is a practical oddity. The hon. Gentleman likes to pretend that there is not a great deal of devolution of power within the United Kingdom. That is not true. In Wales, £3.6 billion of expenditure each year comes under the control of local government, so that is hardly a small issue. In political terms, the hon. Gentleman conveniently forgets that, when the Welsh people were asked what they thought of devolution, they voted four to one against it.

Mr. Forman: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is, perhaps, a minority opinion on the Conservative Benches, which might not be shared by him at the moment—that, as an English Tory, it is possible to welcome the principle of subsidiarity being applied within the United Kingdom as well as within Europe? One does not have to be a Welsh nationalist to see some force in those arguments.

Mr. Davis: With a name like mine, Welshness is not a monopoly of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. The fact of the matter is that the United Kingdom Government see subsidiarity as a very important component of stressing the importance of the nation state within Europe. We have put our efforts principally into ensuring that the European Union reflects and respects that status. We have seen one of the best outcomes of that—the reduction of proposed directives from the Commission from 185 a few years ago to 39 so far this year. That is a very good measure of what subsidiarity is really about.

Mr. Barnes: Does not subsidiarity mean anything that anyone wants it to mean? It has no legal or constitutional significance. It is useless as far as the European Union is concerned, and therefore would be useless as far as the United Kingdom's provisions are concerned. We should have clear constitutional divisions and provisions, and democratic arrangements.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman condemns his own argument out of his own mouth, because subsidiarity is


written down in the treaty and is specified very clearly. What is more, it has practical effects, which I have just described in terms of the reduction in the number of directives, and it will see continuing practical effects in future presidencies. I expect the French presidency coming up to treat it very seriously, too.

Inter-Parliamentary Union

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account he will be taking of the resolutions passed by the 92nd Inter-Parliamentary Union conference held in Copenhagen during September as they affect his Department.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): We were grateful for the report from the leader of the British delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Copenhagen in September and have taken particular note of the adoption of resolutions passed, including those on human rights and the Uruguay round.

Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend will know the welcome that the conference gave to the latest general agreement on tariffs and trade and how it can be used to help alleviate poverty throughout the world. Will he tell us, in respect of Her Majesty's Government, who have been at the forefront of the negotiations, how well her country has done with ratifying the treaty and whether we will meet the target of 1 January 1995?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend, who was at the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference, is absolutely right. The GATT round, which follows the excellent work done by, among others, Sir Leon Brittan, is good news for Britain. The deal agreed last December is a big step towards freer and more open international trade: it will lead to major tariff reductions for trade in goods. The round will bring major benefits for United Kingdom industry and consumers alike, in the form of increased growth, more jobs, lower prices and wider choice. Every hon. Member should be pleased about that.

Mr. Flynn: How do the Government react to the concern expressed at the conference about the potential military threat posed by Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave, the only route to which runs through Lithuania? Has the Minister had an opportunity in the past two days to discuss with the Prime Minister of Lithuania, Mr. Adolfas Slezevicius, the further moves that can be made to connect Lithuania and the Baltic states more deeply with the organisations for peace in the European family of nations?

Mr. Baldry: I have not had such an opportunity, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)—the Minister of State—has.

Sir Michael Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a direct relationship between the resolutions of the IPU conference that has just ended and the proposed United Nations social summit in Copenhagen next year? Will he take this opportunity to assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will give all

possible assistance in ensuring that parliamentarians can play a full part in UN activities, not only in Copenhagen but throughout the year of the UN's 50th anniversary?

Mr. Baldry: I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend, who has just completed his three-year presidency of the IPU. It was a very successful presidency, helping to establish a higher and well-deserved international profile for the IPU, for which thanks are owed to my hon. Friend.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend will chair an IPU working group arranging a special meeting in New York to coincide with the UN's 50th anniversary celebrations. We too are organising a major national commemorative ceremony in Westminster hall in June next year for the 50th anniversary of the signing of the UN charter. We shall, of course, want to ensure that parliamentarians here can play a proper part in UN conferences, as they did at the recent very successful UN conference in Cairo on international population and development.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the Minister aware that one of the most remarkable and welcome features of the conference was the return of a multi-party, multi-ethnic delegation from the new South Africa? Will he continue to give priority to democracy-building in South Africa, and assisting the IPU and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in their relations with the country? Will he also give a special welcome to the newly formed British South Africa group in the House, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn)?

Mr. Baldry: Yes. I hope that all hon. Members will read the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in South Africa, in which he made clear our support for the new South Africa and referred to the large amounts of aid that the United Kingdom will devote to supporting it.

European Union

Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage inter-regional relationships within the European Union.

Mr. David Davis: I welcome inter-regional and cross-border co-operation within the European Union. We have, for example, given full support to the Interreg II Community initiative, an important source of Community funding for such activities. The overall policy co-ordination for this is the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I welcome the progress that has been made, particularly with Interreg II, and in the context of Wales and Ireland. Does my hon. Friend agree that that programme, and others like it, will deepen and develop the relationships between British regions and their European counterparts, and that real benefits are in sight?

Mr. Davis: Indeed, I do. The Interreg programme will certainly help communication and trade between Wales and Ireland and will, therefore, help to deepen and widen


those links. The Government are looking at the allocation of the programme, but I expect the overall benefit to amount to about 99 million ecu for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Is the Minister aware of the tentative efforts taking place involving representatives from the Scottish highlands, Merseyside, Ireland and Northern Ireland over the collective anxiety that is being felt about the way in which objective 1 is proceeding in those areas, not least in regard to the smaller-sized private sector companies? As the Minister acknowledged, much of this comes under the remit of the Department of Trade and Industry, so if I send him the details, will he undertake to pass them on to the President of the Board of Trade so that the anxieties can be fully examined?

Mr. Davis: I shall of course do that. We secured objective 1 status for Merseyside and the highlands and islands in addition to Northern Ireland. The sum total was about £2 billion, so it is important that it is applied properly.

Rwanda

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support his Department is offering to Rwanda; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: Since 6 April, we have committed over £60 million in humanitarian assistance. The Overseas Development Administration and British non-governmental organisations have provided water and emergency supplies to 2 million Rwandan refugees. Within Rwanda we are financing rehabilitation projects, and human rights monitors. We have also provided 600 troops to the UN force. They have helped restore transport routes and have operated a field hospital which has treated over 106,000 people. This has been a substantial, timely and successful effort.

Mr. Llwyd: Given the continued and unmitigated disaster in Rwanda, does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is up to him to argue with those in the Treasury to secure the budget for the next two or three years? It is my understanding—I am sure that he will agree with this—that there is a projected cut of £60 million in the ODA budget for Africa over the next three years. Therefore, I call on him to do something about it. If he does not, his Department will not have the necessary flexibility to deal with similar future emergencies.

Mr. Hurd: I am discussing with the Treasury as part of the normal public expenditure round the ODA budget for the next three years. Comments such as that have been made from the Opposition Benches over and over again in past years. What we have done in Rwanda, and particularly what the ODA has done, has shown that we have been and remain capable, as much as any other country, of putting prompt, effective and substantial help in the field.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is not one of the basic problems with Rwanda that the United Nations was slow to forecast and prevent that catastrophe? Will my right hon. Friend spell out what the British Government will be doing to try to get better forecasting of such situations?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend will accept that it is difficult for the UN or anybody else to plan in advance the extent to which they will intervene in the internal

affairs of a member state. It is not easy. When I talked to the General Assembly in September I put forward some British ideas about how we could help Africans forestall such problems in the future. That is the way that we should help. I have discussed the matter with the Secretary-General of the UN and we shall press on with those ideas.

Mr. Robin Cook: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that tomorrow the aid agencies will express their concern at growing intimidation in the refugee camps by militia of the former Government of Rwanda? Can he assure those agencies that Britain will support any UN measures to improve security in the camps to allow aid work to continue and to enable those refugees who want to return to Rwanda to do so free from intimidation by the very people who carried out the mass murders?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on what I think is the most dangerous aspect of the problem at the moment. It is a real problem. It is not easy for the UN to decide how to deal with it without making it worse. I discussed it with Mr. Boutros Ghali when he was here last week and he knows that we will support any action that he thinks is justified.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain is providing considerable support to the people of Rwanda, but that it is not the cash figure that is significant but the individual quality of the programmes concerned?

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree. It is speed and quality that count on such occasions, and we have been good at providing both.

Indonesia

Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Indonesia to discuss bilateral relations.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no current plans to do so. I visited Indonesia in April.

Mr. Banks: I am glad to hear of my right hon. Friend's visit in April. Does he agree that Indonesia continues to make rapid economic progress under a stable Government and that we should encourage contact and trade at all levels between our two countries? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the National Human Rights Commission there must be seen to be independent and a power unto itself if it is to deal effectively with the exaggerated statements of the overseas media and to settle grievances?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is right—Indonesia is a country that, while it still has a low income, has enjoyed rapid development, adopted sound economic policies and made good use of aid, from the Asian Development bank, the World bank, the Japanese, the Germans, ourselves and others, to reduce poverty. The country is a major potential market for the United Kingdom and will come to assume greater economic weight in the region.
The National Human Rights Commission was set up only earlier this year, but Amnesty International has acknowledged its active and energetic approach. The


commission has already surprised its critics with the strength of its public statements on domestic human rights issues. I agree with what my hon. Friend says about it.

Mrs. Clwyd: I find the right hon. Gentleman's attitude amazing and complacent in the teeth of a recent report by Amnesty International. Does he not know that the Government in Indonesia are suppressing freedom of speech and assembly, and that arbitrary killing and widespread torture continue? Does he not realise that the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) and some of his hon. Friends have just been on a visit to Indonesia, paid for by the Indonesian Government? Does he not realise that, while our Government fawn over that evil regime, it continues to violate basic human rights, both in East Timor and in Indonesia? Why does he not condemn that?

Mr. Goodlad: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position and hope that we shall enjoy further exchanges in future. On reflection, she will not consider it wrong for hon. Members to visit overseas countries—she has done so herself. Through such visits, hon. Members are able to speak with greater knowledge.
The Indonesians are well aware of the importance that we attach to their living up to their human rights obligations. We raise our concerns whenever appropriate, both bilaterally and with our European Union partners. I did so when I visited Indonesia in April. Our experience of the Indonesian Government shows that confidential dialogue is often more effective in bringing about changes in attitudes than public hectoring. Independent observers of Indonesia have said that there has been an improvement there. Amnesty International acknowledges in its report that Indonesia has taken a number of steps to demonstrate its commitment to protecting human rights, such as setting up the National Human Rights Commission and granting more freedom of access—for example, allowing human rights representatives from the United Nations.
This year's session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights commented favourably on the greater access recently granted by the Indonesian authorities to human rights and humanitarian organisations. The commission agreed that Indonesia should invite Mr. Wali N'Diaye, the special rapporteur, to visit Indonesia. Indonesia has been elected as the chairman of the non-aligned movement and has recently been elected a member of the Security Council of the United Nations. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Lady will be ashamed of what she has said from the Labour Front Bench.

Indo-British Partnership Initiative

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on progress with the Indo-British partnership initiative.

Mr. Hurd: Our partnership with India is going splendidly. Bilateral trade has increased by nearly 50 per cent. since the partnership was launched by the Prime Minister in January last year. New British investment increased fivefold last year and the momentum is continuing. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Export Trade will lead an 85-strong delegation to India next month.

Mr. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity—supported, I am sure, by the whole House—

to pay tribute to the skill and bravery of the Indian police who effected such a dramatic rescue a couple of days ago? Does he agree that his reply shows how considerably Britain's relations with India have improved in recent years? Does he further agree that the increase in our investment there is partly a result of the significant economic reforms that India has introduced?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend on all points, especially on the first. We were delighted and relieved that the three Britons held hostage were released so soon and we are most grateful to the Indian police for their professional and effective operation. On behalf of the House, I should like to express our regret about the deaths of two Indian policemen in that operation, and our sympathy to their relatives.

Middle East

Mr. Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to move forward the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We strongly support the peace process. As I have already said, we regard the treaty between Israel and Jordan as a very important step. We now look to progress in the negotiations with Syria and Lebanon and to further negotiations with the Palestinians.

Mr. Alexander: Will my right hon. and learned Friend welcome the decisions taken at the Arab-Israeli conference in Casablanca last week to end the Arab boycott and establish a regional economic community? Does he agree that that helps to underpin the peace process and that countries that trade with one another are the least likely to go to war with one another? Will the Government co-operate to the greatest possible extent in those economic developments?

Mr. Hogg: I had the pleasure of going to Casablanca to participate in the conference. It was an important occasion, partly because it brought Israel and many of the Arab states together in discussion, which is greatly to be welcomed, and partly because it drew the attention of the wider world to the economic opportunities in the region. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) that if nations trade together they are much less likely to fight.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Government have identified the protection of human rights as a key confidence-building measure. Will the Minister assure us that when the temporary international presence for the calling of elections in Gaza and Jericho is established, pursuant to Security Council resolution 904, he and our European partners will insist that a viable human rights mandate is to be a central plank of that protection force? That would be in contrast to what has happened with the temporary international presence in Hebron, which is regarded as an absolute failure by the whole Palestinian community.

Mr. Hogg: I would rather deal with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, about elections, which are very important. I had the opportunity of talking to Yossi Beilin last week on that issue. I should like elections to be called, and called soon.

Kenyan Investors Conference

Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to attend the Kenyan investors conference in London on 17 November.

Mr. Baldry: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will not be attending the investors conference. However, he will be calling on President Moi during the President's stay in London. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will deliver the opening address to the conference.

Sir Thomas Arnold: Does my hon. Friend agree that, since last year's meeting of the Paris club of Kenya's creditors, the Kenyan Government have embarked on a truly remarkable programme of economic reform? Is not the outlook for British investors in Kenya better now than it has been for some time?

Mr. Baldry: Yes. The United Kingdom is by far the largest overseas investor in Kenya, with assets valued in excess of £1 billion. I am glad to say that this year United Kingdom exports to Kenya have increased by 22 per cent. on a similar period last year. We very much welcome the action being taken to improve Kenya's economic performance and look forward to discussing those issues further with President Moi and his colleagues during their forthcoming visit.

Mr. Corbyn: When the Minister meets the President of Kenya, will he convey to him the concerns of many people about the fact that Kenya does not have a genuine multi-party democracy or genuine freedom of speech, and that far too many people have spent too long in Kenyan prisons for attempting to speak out against the current regime?

Mr. Baldry: We shall have a constructive dialogue with President Moi when we meet him and, of course, whenever there are concerns relating to human rights or other issues, we raise them.

Rwanda

Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with United Nations counterparts with the aim of establishing an international judicial tribunal to rule on war crimes in Rwanda; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The preliminary report of the UN Commission of Experts has been received, and work is now being done within the Security Council on the question of a draft.

Mrs. Ewing: That is welcome news, but does the Minister accept that strong representations have been made by, among others, Amnesty International, to the effect that there must be a judicial review of what has happened in Rwanda? Does he accept that it is essential that war crimes are examined and war criminals tried and sentenced, especially when they have been guilty of genocide? Will the Government ensure that all initiatives undertaken by the Security Council are given the full moneys and the support of the House?

Mr. Hogg: It is entirely right that those who have committed serious crimes should be brought to trial. It is

equally important that when we set up, define and formulate a tribunal we try to ensure that the processes are as just as they can be made.

Mr. Worthington: Is not it better to prevent war crimes? What do the Government intend to do to prevent future war crimes? We were promised in May that 5,500 troops would be deployed in Rwanda, but we have now been told by Baroness Chalker that the deployment of those troops will take another 10 weeks. Now, in November, we are still two battalions short because of the failure of the major powers to provide the logistical support to get the troops there. Is not that in great contrast with what happened recently in the Gulf? Is not it true that, to the Government, oil wells are more important than African lives?

Mr. Hogg: War crimes will stop when human nature changes.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although Britain has made an outstanding contribution in Rwanda, as in many other countries, it really is pushing it when a party that has consistently called for defence cuts suggests that our overstretched armed forces should make even larger contributions to try to prevent incidents that, as my right hon. and learned Friend rightly says, are ultimately the result of the ugliness of human nature?

Mr. Hogg: We have indeed made a contribution in Rwanda, and an even larger contribution in the former Yugoslavia. I do not think that the British Government can in any way be criticised for the steps that we have so far taken.

European Union

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the accession of new states to the European Union; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Davis: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have had discussions on that matter with our opposite numbers in the European Union at several meetings, up to and including the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday.
The Foreign Secretary said earlier that the Essen Council will propose a strategy for the accession. That will contain substantial measures—for example, trade liberalisation, political dialogue and integration with the single market. Meanwhile, we welcome the progress already made by the European Free Trade Association members.

Mr. Salmond: Now that Austria and Finland, as small European states, have voted to join the European Union, and we hope for further progress from Scandinavia, will the Minister tell the House why the nation of Scotland should settle for B-league status in Europe—as part of Britain, with Commissioners who are humiliated and a Government who are out of step with all other


Europeans—instead of aspiring to an independent status and to equality of status with those other small European nations?

Mr. Davis: It seems to fall to me today to defend our nation state against its main aggressors.

Mr. Salmond: The enemy within.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman describes himself as the enemy within. I am a Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and that United Kingdom brings benefits to all its members, in Scotland, in England and in other parts. I am proud of that fact, and so are most people in all parts of the United Kingdom. For that reason, the hon. Gentleman's question is not only hypothetical but implausible.

Mr. Colvin: I have always advocated the widening of the European Union rather than its deepening. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the recent four new members of the European Union, the Scandinavian countries and Austria, are all net contributors to the European budget, but that the next four waiting to join—Poland, Hungary, the Czech lands and Slovakia—will all be big beneficiaries of the European budget, which will more than double its size? Therefore, is not further widening of the EU to be regarded as a long-term aim and not something to be rushed into quickly?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend raises an important point which relates to how we must prepare for the next accession and the next stage of the enlargement of the Union. The two principal components of the fund flow that he describes from the current Union to the accessionary states of the Visegrad four would be the structural funds and the common agricultural policy. If we took the route of enlargement with those policies as they currently stand, we would see a transfer of—probably—some 50 billion ecu. That tells me, and the whole Union, that we have to get those policies properly corrected and properly structured before the next accession and the next stage of enlargement.

Ms Quin: Can the Minister clarify the Government's policy towards a defence role for the enlarged European Union? I ask this question given the different reports in the press last week. It was reported one day that the Foreign Secretary was keen to see a defence role for the enlarged European Union, but the next day that there was deep disquiet among Government Back Benchers about the matter.

Mr. Davis: I welcome the hon. Lady back to her old role and I am glad that she is still there. Security in the European Union and its enlargement, which is what this question is about, after all, is an extremely sensitive issue, and it is important that people understand public statements. To that end, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has put the text of his speech in the Library of the House of Commons.

Mr. Jessel: Could enlargement entail too many Commissioners? Has my hon. Friend noticed that both Sweden and Norway have nominated Commissioners

although they have not yet had their referendums, the results of which are uncertain? Are not they pre-empting the results of their referendums?

Mr. Davis: Yes, they have put forward names for their Commissioners, but that is a matter of practicality. The European Parliament votes on the proposed Commissioners very quickly after the accession date. Yes, we think that there are too many Commissioners. Indeed, our policy is to reduce the number.

Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister accept that the overwhelming majority of Scottish people believe that their interests are best served by being part of the United Kingdom? However, does the Minister also accept that the best interests of the United Kingdom in the European Union would be best served by the maximum subsidiarity in the United Kingdom through the maximum devolution of a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh assembly and English regional assemblies?

Mr. Davis: I commend the hon. Gentleman. For a long time I have known him to be a bastion of the Union—indeed, he is built like a bastion of the Union—but this is a rather long stretch of the subject of enlargement.

Saudi Arabia

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Hurd: They are excellent.

Mr. Dalyell: What have the Saudis said to the British Government about the commercial activities of Mark Thatcher?

Mr. Hurd: Nothing.

Gaza Strip

Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British support to the Palestinian authorities in the Gaza strip.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We support the negotiations and are providing £75 million over three years.

Mr. Hanson: Will the Minister recognise that, while that sum of money is very welcome, it does not go very far towards meeting the needs of the Palestinian authorities? Indeed, it is not as much as some other western countries are contributing. Will he kindly review the amount of money that we are giving? In addition, will he put pressure on Syria, following last week's Casablanca conference, to ensure that it contributes to the Palestinian authorities in Gaza and, in doing so, avoids the threat of militancy and extremism?

Mr. Hogg: The most important and constructive thing that the Syrians could do is enter into discussions with Israel with a view to achieving a full peace treaty between Syria and Israel. That is the course of action that I commended to President Assad and it is something for which the British Government will continue to press.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that peace in the middle east is a very fragile flower and that the Palestinians are having much difficulty


at the moment as a result of the terrorist actions of Hamas? Will my right hon. and learned Friend and his Department try to intervene with the principals of Hamas and, in particular, with the state of Iran to ensure that it will do everything in its power to encourage Palestinians to remain at peace with Israel?

Mr. Hogg: It is important that Chairman Arafat should do all that he can to prevent Hamas operating as against Israel. However, it is also fair to point out to the Government of Israel that it is sometimes rather hard to expect of Chairman Arafat a result and outcome which Israel herself, with all her forces, could not achieve.

Mr. Burden: Does the Minister accept that, while we condemn the kind of terrorist attacks that took place in Tel Aviv on 19 October, collective punishment of the Palestinian people is neither acceptable nor lawful and that we really require more progress to an early relaxation of the border restrictions between Gaza, Israel and the west bank?

Mr. Hogg: I would prefer not to address the two issues, as it were, in the same paragraph because that might suggest that there is some justification for terrorism and I know that that is not what the hon. Gentleman meant.
With regard to a relaxation in the prohibitions on people from Gaza entering Israel, there needs to be an early relaxation. I am glad to say that on 1 November, the Israelis announced that they would grant 8,000 licences for people in the construction industry to go into Israel. I welcome that. We look to a further and early relaxation with a view to a very substantial increase in the number of people from Gaza able to work in Israel.

European Union

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on United Kingdom policy towards the further enlargement of the European Union to encompass the countries of central and eastern Europe.

Mr. David Davis: As I have already said, we support the eastward enlargement of the European Union. At the Essen Council, in conjunction with the Commission and the German presidency, we shall be looking for ways to help that process take place, including substantial measures, as I have said, in trade liberalisation, political dialogue and integration with the single market.

Mr. Brown: This is the first opportunity that I have had to congratulate my hon. Friend and next-door neighbour on his new responsibilities. Will he confirm that the impetus for the enlargement process with regard to eastern Europe has so far come largely from the efforts of the United Kingdom? Will he give an assurance and an undertaking that that impetus, which so far has been stimulated by this country, will continue?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right in a sense. It is rather more generally a mark of the success of our view of the future of the European Union. That view has been taken up by many other countries and many others subscribe to it. However, it is not the only example. One

could also say that we have been successful in pushing the causes of subsidiarity, of enlargement—which my hon. Friend mentioned—and of the single market, and our arguments on deregulation with respect to increasing employment in the EU are now also winning the day.

Mr. O'Hara: With regard to enlargement, will the Minister give an assurance that the British Government will not make the accession of Cyprus to the European Union conditional on the prior resolution of the current situation in Cyprus?

Mr. Davis: Clearly, the division of the island of Cyprus is a problem for us, but we shall look at the matter in January.

Mr. Simon Coombs: What more can my hon. Friend and the Department do to encourage and promote cultural and trading links with the countries of central and eastern Europe, so that British influence in those areas can be sustained by direct contacts?

Mr. Davis: A great deal is already happening. As part of the PHARE programme, British companies are winning between 16 and 17 per cent. of technical advice contracts. That is already leading to enormous influence for British ideas in eastern Europe.

Exports (Far East)

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help is given to British industry and commerce by United Kingdom embassies to develop the export of United Kingdom goods to far eastern countries; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Goodlad: Commercial officers in our far eastern posts use their specialist market knowledge to give exporters practical help, advice and support. For instance, they provide exporters with targeted information about opportunities for their products and help exporters identify overseas representatives. They also give background information about local firms with which British companies plan to do business.
We attach high priority to expanding exports to the rapidly growing far eastern market. By using savings made elsewhere, manpower resources devoted to commercial work in Asia and the Pacific rim have risen by 23 per cent. since 1990. Last year, 28 new front-line commercial jobs were created in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. I am glad to say that exports to the region rose by 28.5 per cent. in 1993, to £13 billion.

Mr. O'Brien: Given that, in recent years, the Government have tended to emphasise the exporting of arms and military equipment, may we be assured now that there will be a greater emphasis on more domestic products, and that assistance will be given to exporters, especially in west Yorkshire, so that we can develop the export trade to the far east?

Mr. Goodlad: I have visited Yorkshire and spoken to exporters, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that they will get all the help that we can give them.

points of order

Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry came to the House some time ago and made a statement, based on the options set out in the White Paper, on the Post Office. It now seems that the options that were described to the House have been cast aside and that fresh proposals are being cobbled together in an ad hoc way and are being discussed at this very moment in an upstairs Room.
Can the House be given a statement on the options for the Post Office; and can it be communicated to the Secretary of State that the future of the Royal Mail and the Post Office is not a matter to be dealt with as a bartering process among Conservative Members?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member will have seen that there are appropriate Ministers on the Treasury Bench. I have not been told by any Minister that he is seeking to make a statement on that matter today.
I had anticipated that there would be a point of order for me today about the events that took place last night when the Committee of Privileges finished its meeting. As there is no point of order, however—[Interruption.] I can cope without one. It is a matter of great seriousness and great importance. What has taken place could have repercussions for the working of the whole of our system of Select Committees. Clearly, the matter has privilege

aspects—[Interruption.] Order. Does the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) have a point of order for me?

Mr. Robin Corbett: I do not know what you are talking about, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Perhaps, once it is printed, the hon. Member will do me the courtesy of looking at the Hansard report.
As I was saying, the matter clearly has privilege aspects, and for that reason I could have insisted that it was first raised with me in writing. But because of its importance, and because this is the last full working day of the Session, I have decided, exceptionally, to make an interim ruling today.
My ruling is that the Committee of Privileges must have an opportunity to make a report on this matter to the House before the House takes any action. Members will find described on page 136 of "Erskine May" the practice of the House whereby
A matter alleged to have arisen in committee but not reported by it may not generally be brought to the attention of the House on a complaint of breach of privilege.
The purported written report from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was issued, so I understand, after the conclusion of yesterday's meeting of the Committee of Privileges. The Committee has therefore not yet had the opportunity of making a report on it to the House of the kind to which I have just referred. I hope that, following its next meeting, the Committee will make such a report so that the House can have an early opportunity to consider this matter in an orderly manner and to take any action that it may think fit.
For those reasons, I do not propose to take any points of order on this matter today. The House knows exactly where it stands if hon. Members have listened very carefully to all my words.

Disabled Persons (Consultation)

Mr. Roger Berry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a system of consultation when legislation relating to disabled persons is proposed and to set rules for formulating compliance cost assessments in the case of such legislation.
The House will be aware that the Government have recently consulted on their proposals to tackle discrimination against disabled people. It will also be aware that that exercise was conducted in response to the overwhelming support for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. No doubt that accounts for the attendance in the Chamber at this time.
I am sure that support for the Bill, inside and outside the House, encouraged the Government to put forward their own proposals. I am also sure that their consultation document was published in response to the widespread disquiet at the manner in which the Government blocked that Bill temporarily. Nevertheless, I welcomed the consultation exercise, not least because, by issuing that consultation document, the Government made it quite clear that disabled people face systematic discrimination and that they believed that this must be tackled through legislation. Therefore, in common with other hon. Members, I eagerly await the Government's publication of the results of that consultation exercise and further debate on that issue. In the meantime, my Bill is a modest attempt to address and correct some of the serious limitations in that consultation exercise.
The main issues that we must consider are the way in which consultation exercises are undertaken and the misuse of so-called compliance cost assessments. For example, it is said by many people, including the Prime Minister, that the price tag on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is £17 billion. As I shall demonstrate, that figure has no basis in fact. That a document claiming to be a compliance cost assessment could come up with that figure suggests that we should carefully review the rules for compliance cost assessments in order to ensure that truthful figures are produced, not figments of people's imagination.
In relation to the consultation process, my Bill recognises that the Government may, of course, consult on whatever proposals they wish—there is no question about that. Disabled people, however, have felt and still feel that it was regrettable that, in the recent consultation exercise, the Government refused to consult on the one proposal for tackling discrimination against disabled people that disabled people wanted—the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
I recently received a communication from the Spastics Society—I am sure that hon. Members would like to join me in congratulating that society on the fact that, tomorrow, it will change its name to Scope—in which it pointed out that it regretted that the Government had excluded from their consultation exercise items that featured in the civil rights Bill. That regret has been repeated by other organisations of and for disabled people.
My Bill contains some very modest proposals. It would require that, when the Government undertook a consultation exercise, they would include with their proposals for disabled people any proposals relating to similar matters that disabled people supported. That seems perfectly reasonable.
Secondly, it would also be reasonable to state that any proposed Government consultation should include legislation that received an unopposed Second Reading in the Chamber. A Bill is not carried every day of the week by 231 votes to nil on Second Reading. That vote expresses the view of the House and should be the subject of consultation.
Thirdly, my Bill would require that any legislation that had successfully completed its Committee stage should be a matter for proper consultation. Finally, any legislation that had completed either of those stages in the other place should also be the subject of consultation.
I am sure that hon. Members are reasonable, although I do not want to over-egg it, and I am sure that they would agree that any legislation that has passed any one of those four tests, let alone all of them, is worthy of detailed consultation in the sort of exercise in which the Government have just engaged.
The second issue dealt with in the Bill concerns compliance cost assessments for proposed legislation. Those sound very grand. Some people think that the assessment is based on a widely accepted technique for evaluating policy, whether by economists or anyone else. It is not and no self-respecting economist would touch many of the assessments with a bargepole. Indeed, the appalling errors in the compliance cost assessment for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill have led me to suggest these new rules. They are not controversial, but they are worth stating.
First, when undertaking a compliance cost assessment, one should refrain from counting the same thing twice. Double counting, whether by accident or by design, obviously inflates estimates of costs. That may be welcome to someone who opposes the legislation, but it hardly brings such an exercise into good repute. For example, the compliance cost assessment for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill included the cost of providing access to existing buildings in the environment section, but some of the costs were counted again in the sections on employment and education. That double counting accounts for £6 billion of the alleged £17 billion costs.
Secondly, one should not assume a phasing-in period that is not contained in the proposed legislation. It was assumed that everything contained in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill would have to be done within five years. That does not feature in the Bill. If we allow for a proper phasing-in period for transport, we could reduce the costs by yet another £6 billion.
I am running short of time, so suffice it to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."]—I appreciate why some opponents of the Bill might be happy about that. The £17 billion figure should never be used again. According to the Government's assumptions, if we avoid double counting and do not allow for time periods that are not in the Bill, we are down to £5 billion.
Compliance cost assessments should also be required to take into account the benefits of legislation. It has been estimated that discrimination excludes disabled people from the labour market at a cost of between £3 billion and £5 billion a year. The cost of inaccessible transport is £1 billion. My Bill would ensure that much more meaningful consultation took place on legislation relating to disabled people and it would ensure more meaningful cost-benefit


analyses. Today's Bill, like the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, has all-party support and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roger Berry, Mr. John Austin-Walker, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. David Congdon, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Don Dixon, Sir John Hannam, Mr. Alan Howarth, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. Alfred Morris and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

DISABLED PERSONS (CONSULTATION)

Mr. Roger Berry accordingly presented a Bill to provide for a system of consultation when legislation relating to disabled persons is proposed and to set rules for formulating compliance cost assessments in the case of such legislation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

Privileges

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the light of your wise and understandable statement, and as the Government knew perfectly well as far back as 10 May that a letter had been written on House of Commons notepaper, is not it rather odd that we should give preference above other business to a debate such as this at this time? We must remember how long the Government have known about the letter and surely your statement rather alters events, does it not?

Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The motion on privilege is extremely narrowly drawn—as you reminded us when we considered a similar motion earlier this week. In view of last night's events, there will be a clear temptation in today's debate for hon. Members on both sides to discuss the proceedings of the Privileges Committee. That is something which you warned us against previously and which I am sure you will warn us against today.
Secondly, anyone voting for the motion today cannot have any idea whether, if carried, the complaint will be considered by the Committee in public or in private, or how the proceedings of the Committee will be arranged.

Madam Speaker: Order. Could I have a point of order for me?

Mr. Madden: I believe that to consider the motion today would be premature. Could it be withdrawn to enable us to consider it when the proceedings of the Privileges Committee are themselves clear and made known to the House?

Mr. Alan Duncan: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I can deal with the two points of order now. I think that I have captured the mood of the House on this matter. There is certainly no conflict between the motion before us today and the statement that I made earlier. The motion is in perfect order and it is ready for debate. Quite frankly, the House has a responsibility, at this stage, to deal with the motion now.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, during the time that you have been in the Chair and prior to that, there have been countless instances every year of people, both inside and outside the House, using House of Commons notepaper when they should not have done so. Can you tell me on how many occasions such people have used the notepaper but not had it brought before the Privileges Committee?

Madam Speaker: Of course, I cannot give the hon. Member a figure for that at this stage, but I shall certainly have some research carried out and do my best to respond to his question. It is not a point of order for me, but I am always willing to give as much information as I can to individual hon. Members.

Mr. David Wilshire: I wish to call attention to the alleged action of The Guardian newspaper in representing that a letter sent by it to the Ritz hotel, Paris, was sent in the name of an honourable Member of this House.
I beg to move,
That the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
There are occasions when I would give my eye teeth to address the House in prime time and on an important issue, but this is not one of them. This debate opens up all sorts of predictable criticism and offers us assorted traps into which we can all fall. I fully understand that in a debate such as this it would be very easy to sound pompous, sanctimonious and utterly party political, but when we seek to defend our collective reputations and, more importantly, the status and symbols of the House, there will always be a risk of allegations of hypocrisy, oversensitivity and being out of touch.
While the debate is, of necessity, about a possible abuse of the House and contempt of Parliament, I hope that the whole House would be just as concerned if the victim of this alleged conspiracy, impersonation and forgery were the proverbial Joe Bloggs, whose letter heading did not have a portcullis or the words "House of Commons".

Mr. Tony Banks: I would have much more sympathy with the case being made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) if the information about the use of a piece of notepaper purporting to come from the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) had been brought to the attention of the House when the right hon. Gentleman himself knew about it. He knew about it on 10 May. The Cabinet Secretary knew about it on 18 May. Why was not the House so informed at that time if it is so important now?

Mr. Wilshire: I am happy for other hon. Members to make their case in their way, but I prefer to make my case in the way that I think is best.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a point for you. You have emphasised, understandably, that this is a matter of precedence over other business. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) says, the matter was known about in the public print on 10 May and the Cabinet Secretary wrote letters on 18 May. Why is it given precedence?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member cannot disrupt our proceedings in this way with points of order that are really not points of order. It has been determined that this matter takes precedence today and it is the responsibility and duty of the House to debate it. It is about time that we faced up to some duties in the House.

Mr. Wilshire: rose—

Mr. Roger Gale: In view of the points that have just been raised, does my hon. Friend accept that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary apparently considered referring the matter to the Press

Complaints Commission, but as at that time Mr. Peter Preston was a member of the Commission, they felt that it was not worth doing so?

Mr. Wilshire: Again, those are interesting points, but I should like to press ahead.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can we now assume that the rules involving raising matters at the earliest possible moment no longer apply?

Madam Speaker: As I have told the House and the hon. Member, the motion before us and the way in which we are proceeding are completely in order according to the business of the House and precedents that have stood us in good stead over many years.

Mr. Wilshire: Thank you, Madam Speaker. All that I can say is that as soon as I knew about the matter, I raised it with you on Monday morning.
I also want to make it clear at the outset that in saying what I say this afternoon I do not seek to criticise all journalists and all editors when I criticise one. I make no claims at all to be better than or different from anyone else. I know that I run the risk of setting myself up for abuse and criticism, but so be it. That is the lot of all politicians.
All I know is that if I was caught forging faxes, however much I felt that I could justify it, I would expect to be pilloried by every newspaper in the land, and that is a fate that I would richly deserve. If, when I was found out, I indulged in self-righteous self-justification, I would rightly deserve the contempt of every fair-minded person.
Again at the outset I want to say that I am anxious to try to avoid cheap party politics. [Interruption.] I guessed that that would get a hollow laugh. All I can say is, please hear me out and then judge at the end whether I am playing party politics.
I am relieved that you, Madam Speaker, have made it clear that the debate must confine itself to narrow issues—in fact, the issues in my motion—because those are the issues that I wanted to raise when I wrote to you on Monday. Whatever an hon. Member may or may not have done is not part of the issue, although I can quite understand why there are people in the House who want to pursue that story.
This issue is sufficiently important to require separate and immediate attention. What concerns us today are the methods employed by a respected national newspaper when investigating a Member of Parliament. At best, those methods were ethically flawed; at worst, they were downright criminal. Whichever they were, they were a flagrant abuse of the House and need to be investigated.
I say that for three reasons. Those in a privileged position must be above reproach—at least, that is the message that newspapers have been trumpeting these past few weeks. I am perfectly happy to accept that Members of Parliament are in a privileged position, even if most of us do not have much power. I am, however, clear in my mind that newspaper editors are in an equally privileged position and wield substantial power.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that Mr. Peter Preston acted


in the public interest in revealing the fact that Conservative Members failed to register pecuniary interests: yes or no?

Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself and hear me out, he will get his answer.
If editors maintain that Members of Parliament should be above reproach, it follows that they also should be beyond reproach. My second reason is that two of the most important duties of all Members of Parliament are to stand up for the rights of the individual and for the rule of law. Perhaps the greatest threat to both is the belief held by people in powerful positions that the ends justify the means. Down that route lurks the jackboot and the lynch mob.
If I understand history correctly, this Parliament came into existence to protect the citizen from arbitrary abuse and victimisation. Throughout Parliament's history, we have had to square up to the over-mighty who seek to place themselves above the law.
My third reason is the total lack of a proper apology by the editor of The Guardian. From time to time, we all allow our enthusiasm to run away with us and do things that we later regret. When I do that, I find people willing to accept a proper apology, while I want to hide in a dark corner for quite a while. But not so the editor of The Guardian. Over the past few days, and again in Mr. Preston's letter of resignation from the Press Complaints Commission last night, the nation has been treated to the mocking of decency and honesty, and to the attempted justification of deceit and deception.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilshire: No. I will press on because I have been generous with interventions up to now.
My description of the details of the allegations is based on comments made by Mr. Preston, Mr. Al Fayed and reports in The Guardian. In the circumstances, I hope that the House will find all those sources reliable. Last autumn, Mr. Al Fayed told Mr. Preston about a Ritz hotel bill. Quite how or why an extremely busy international tycoon found time to interest himself in such a matter of detail is not reported, as far as I can discover. Mr. Preston wanted a copy of that bill, while Mr. Al Fayed wanted to protect his own reputation and that of his hotel. They concocted a plan to forge a fax.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. Are we debating whether the matter should be considered by the Committee of Privileges, or are we debating what should be discussed by the Committee at a later date?

Madam Speaker: That is a very good point of order. We are debating today whether the House should refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. I have just read the motion for the umpteenth time and it is very narrow. Although references may be made to certain matters, they should not be detailed and ought to be brief. The

House should keep it in mind that it is considering only whether the matter should go before the Privileges Committee for detailed investigation there.

Mr. Wilshire: I shall certainly try to keep my reasons for wanting the matter referred as brief as I possibly can.
As I said, because Mr. Preston wanted a copy of the bill, a plan was concocted to forge a fax. I am no lawyer, but that sounds like a criminal conspiracy to me. As a result, Mr. Preston arranged for the top of a letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), on official House of Commons stationery, to be stuck to the top of a fax to make it appear that it came from a Member of Parliament. That sounds remarkably like forgery to me.
Finally, Mr. Preston worded the fax to suggest that the sender was my right hon. Friend's private secretary. Lawyers to whom I have spoken tell me that that sounds remarkably like impersonation. Thus, it appears to me that Mr. Preston has admitted not only to an abuse of Parliament, but to criminal activity. That is why I have referred the matter to the police.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilshire: No—I have detained the House long enough. I want to make a couple more points; then I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, could call the hon. Gentleman to speak, if he is on your list.
I can think of no better way to sum up my case than to quote something that I heard on Radio 4 on Monday morning:
I think that anyone other than a Member of Parliament writing on parliamentary paper is unacceptable and I think that there does need to be some investigation into exactly what happened. I don't think it's right for others than Members of Parliament to take on that role, and I think there are some questions that need to be answered there.
I agree with every word of that comment made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), Labour's shadow Leader of the House. Thus the hon. Lady and I stand united across the party political divide. That is why I want the matter referred to the Privileges Committee. That is why I want to hear its verdict and its views on possible punishment. That is also why I welcome the verdict of a jury and the punishment handed down by a judge.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): rose—

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the House is Chairman of the Privileges Committee, which will deal with the matter. He used his casting vote on a previous occasion, and I have no doubt that if it meets again he will use it for this matter. I want to know why he can take part in the debate, leading on behalf of the Government, when he will be acting as judge and jury.

Mr. Newton: As I had indicated to you, Madam Speaker, I felt it appropriate to say a word, but really only two sentences. First, as Leader of the House, I hope that the House will accept my hon. Friend's motion. Secondly, as Chairman of the Privileges


Committee, I think that the House will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment beyond that.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I, too, will be brief as the matter before the House is relatively straightforward and the motion is very narrow.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). I very much regret the extravagant and intemperate language that he used, which did not help his case.
The basis of the complaint is that the editor—[Interruption.] If we are able to consider the matter carefully, it will do the House a great deal of good; it is an extremely important issue.
The basis of the complaint that the hon. Gentleman made, in respect of allegations that the editor of The Guardian used House of Commons notepaper and forged the signature of a member of staff of a Member of the House, is very serious, and on Monday, you, Madam Speaker, instigated inquiries through the Serjeant at Arms.
The motion proposes that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee. Clearly, there has been a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. I repeat what I said on Monday morning, which the hon. Member for Spelthorne quoted. I made it clear, as soon as I heard the allegations against Mr. Preston, that for anyone other than a Member of Parliament to use official notepaper is completely unacceptable, as it clearly is for anyone to forge any signature. It is unacceptable behaviour for an editor of a newspaper or, indeed, for anyone else. Anyone who receives a letter on House of Commons writing paper must be able to believe that the letter is genuine, not least to protect our ability to serve our constituents. When we write to doctors, lawyers or, indeed, anyone else, those recipients must feel confident that the letters are genuine.
The reference to the Privileges Committee is therefore inevitable and entirely appropriate. I do not seek to defend the actions of the editor of The Guardian, or to justify them. Mr. Preston has said that, in retrospect, he may have been wrong to do what he did. He was wrong; he was foolish; and it is right for the Committee to consider his actions.
I hope that the Committee will also consider when hon. Members first knew of the fax, and of the forgery that forms the subject of this inquiry. It is important that the Committee finds out who knew about the forgery, when they knew about it and why, if Members of Parliament knew that there had been a flagrant breach of this kind, they did not report it earlier to you, Madam Speaker.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Why does the hon. Lady think that the timing is relevant? The important point is that either this was done, or it was not. I gather from what the hon. Lady is saying that she thinks it was thoroughly wrong to do it. It was against the principles and rules of the House, and that is the end of the matter.

Mrs. Taylor: I think that any hon. Member who finds that there has been a flagrant breach of privilege has a responsibility to report it to the House. I think it entirely right for the Committee of Privileges to examine this matter as well as the other details that have been mentioned.
Statements have been made in today's press that Cabinet members—including the Prime Minister as well as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—knew all about the misuse of House of Commons paper several months ago. It is not for the House to consider that in detail this afternoon, but I believe that it is relevant to the inquiry, and I hope that the Committee will take that aspect on board.
The fact that Mr. Preston was wrong should not be used as a reason for ignoring the issues that he was raising and, indeed, the evidence that has come to light. Mr. Preston might claim that he used a foolish device to verify essential evidence and to protect his source of information. It is interesting that no one has challenged the factual information that he presented, nor are those facts challenged by this debate.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Lady, surely, is trying to change the facts completely. Surely what happened was a conspiracy by Mr. Preston to try to hide the fact that he was working with a blackmailer in an attempt to bring down the Government.

Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the Privileges Committee will hear everything that is said. [Interruption.] As some of my hon. Friends are saying, it would be wise not to make allegations of that kind outside the House.

Mr. Corbett: I do not disagree with a word that my hon. Friend has said. Does she acknowledge, however, that although paragraph 7 of the Press Complaints Commission's code of conduct, which was generally approved by the Government, states that subterfuge should not be used, it also states that it is possible if it is in the public interest?

Mrs. Taylor: It is interesting to note that, when Opposition Members have attempted to increase the accountability of the press, they have generally been blocked by Conservative Members. We are considering one aspect of the means used to obtain information. The ends do not justify the means, but neither do the means invalidate the attempts to raise issues of genuine and important public concern. The methods adopted raise some big questions and we should not lose sight of the fact that journalists and others are trying to prise out information because we do not have a sufficiently transparent system of accountability in this country. If we had a better system of registering the interests of Members of Parliament and Ministers, this might not have happened.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You told the House, rightly, that this is to be a narrow debate. The hon. Lady is attempting to make some party political points.

Madam Speaker: I am listening to the debate carefully; the hon. Gentleman can leave it in my hands. The hon. Lady is doing perfectly well at the moment. I believe that she is about to finish, if the hon. Gentleman will allow her to do so.

Mrs. Taylor: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was about to conclude. I have tried not to be partisan because these issues are in the interests of us all.
The Nolan committee will consider some of the wider issues, and it is important that the House does so too. Mr. Preston's action must be referred to the Privileges Committee, and I hope that its members will investigate all the issues that are raised by this reference.

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, arising from what was said by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who moved the motion. He said that he had reported this matter simultaneously to the police. For many years, the House, which has a jurisdiction of its own, has kept a wide boundary between its jurisdiction and that of the courts. If this is to be pursued in the courts with, presumably, a prosecution for forgery, while the Committee is handling the matter, we could be in difficulties.[Interruption.] I hope that the House will listen because this is a point of substance.
If the case is taken to court, it will be heard in open court, whereas in the Committee of Privileges it will be heard in secret.[Interruption.] Yes, that is the decision of the Committee. If Mr. Preston is referred to the Committee of Privileges and he asks for the right to print in his newspaper what happened in the Committee, he will be guilty of another breach of privilege for revealing the Committee's proceedings. I am drawing to your attention, Madam Speaker, an important question. We have stumbled into this without thinking it out. There are two jurisdictions and two regimes: an open regime in the court and a private regime in the Committee. If Mr. Preston were to be hauled up, he would be put in an impossible position.

Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but it is not a point of order for me. It is a speech that he might wish to make during the debate, when he may have something of substance to say. It is not a point of order at this time.

Mr. Benn: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have given my ruling.

Mr. Benn: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Sit down for a moment. I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. It is not a point of order at this stage. It is a point that right hon. and hon. Members may wish to employ during the debate. It is not a point of order on which I can rule.

Mr. Benn: With great respect, I have no intention of speaking today because I spoke on Monday. By accepting a motion after we have been told that the issue is going to another jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the House is infringed. That is a matter for you, Madam Speaker; it is not a matter of judgment for the House. It is for you to protect the jurisdiction of the House and to order the hon. Member for Spelthorne, if we do proceed, not to take the matter to the courts, otherwise the rights of the House of Commons will be taken over by the courts.

Madam Speaker: I gave the matter careful consideration before it came before the House today. There is no sub judice involved—we are perfectly in order, as was the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr.

Wilshire) in moving the motion. I spent a great deal of time taking legal advice on the subject, and the way in which we are proceeding is perfectly in order.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that one reason why Committees sit in secret is that they collect evidence? Police and other investigations are carried out in secret, and only when all the information has been looked into and collected—

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are attempting to conduct the debate through me. They must wait for me to call them. I hope that there will be no more points of order—we must proceed with the debate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours, who has not had a point of order yet.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I was rising to speak in the debate.

Madam Speaker: What a wise man. I shall call him after I have dealt with the points of order.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) asked a number of questions that other hon. Members had asked earlier. It was clear that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) was either unable or unwilling to answer those questions, which related directly to the motion. The House requires clear information that the Leader of the House was unable to give—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, but a matter for debate. Hon. Members are raising matters for argument, not points of order. There has been no breach of our Standing Orders or procedures. Hon. Members are raising matters for debate across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Dalyell: I have a point of order that is directly for you, Madam Speaker; it falls within your jurisdiction. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) what possible relevance there was in the timing of all this. Is there not an obligation on the Government at least to give an explanation? They may have a perfectly good explanation, but the debate cannot continue without their explaining why something that was known in May was not tackled until November. That is a fundamental point and the Leader of the House of Commons has an obligation to explain.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me; it is a debating matter. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to extract information, which is perfectly reasonable, but he cannot extract information from me; he must do it through other hon. Members.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I shall take no more points of order.

Mr. Roger Gale: I wish to raise five matters that are relevant to the decision that we will be required to take later today. I shall confine those issues strictly within the bounds of the motion. I am well aware that some of what I have to say will not be palatable.
Before raising those issues, I want to ask the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) a question. She indicated that she intends to support the motion. In the light of her partisan statements and the partisan comments from Labour Back Benchers, I want to know whether the Opposition intend to support the referral of a breach of privilege to the Committee. Will the hon. Lady's Back-Bench colleagues support that referral?

Mrs. Ann Taylor: That is a matter for the House, and I hope that all hon. Members will exercise their judgment. I clearly said that I support the referral to the Select Committee on Privileges. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should ask me about that.

Mr. Gale: It seems that Opposition Members are trying to have their cake and eat it by half-heartedly condemning the clear breach of privilege while trying to curry favour with the press.
The press have sought to give the impression to the public that we are discussing the misuse of House of Commons writing paper and, in so doing, have sought to trivialise the matter. They have given the impression that we are talking merely about a letter that was written on paper, which we now know was not stolen paper but just the clipped heading of a piece of House of Commons paper. They have given the impression that the matter involved a trivial misuse, and simply represented a mistake.
That is not all that we are dealing with this afternoon. We are dealing first with the forgery of a letter purporting to come from a Minister of the Crown, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Secondly, we are dealing with a very clear intent to deceive. Thirdly, we are dealing with the impersonation not only of a member of the Chief Secretary's staff but of someone who was at the time a senior civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, whose signature was copied.
That is the first series of issues. They are not trivial matters but serious and possibly criminal offences. The use of writing paper was certainly a discourtesy to the House, but the matter goes much wider than that and we need to focus on it, however much others may seek to mislead the public.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: In the world of modern communications, whether one is dealing with a fax or another communication to a newspaper, are not the chances of a letter getting into general circulation—even with none of the explanations attached to it that the editor of The Guardian has sought to attach to it—such that they make such an action even more culpable and fraudulent?

Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I hope and believe that those responsible for bringing criminal charges in this case will consider his point very seriously. I would expect a criminal action to follow, but that is not what we are here to consider today.
This matter does not relate only to The Guardian, although we are debating the referral of the actions of its editor to the Privileges Committee. The Guardian set itself up as the gamekeeper of political morality and all the other Fleet street newspapers clung to the gamekeeper's coat tails. The gamekeeper's coat pockets have now been found to be full of stolen pheasants. The other newspapers that ran stories about my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, that ran pictures of his wife and children and that sought to drag him and his down, are left with sizeable egg on their faces. If I may mix my metaphors, the rats are now quickly leaving a ship that is holed and sinking.

Mr. Chris Mullin: The hon. Gentleman, like me, is a journalist by profession. Is he even mildly curious about what the former Minister of State for Defence Procurement was doing in a hotel in Paris at the same time as three Saudi arms dealers?

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) will not pursue that, as to do so would stray wide of the motion.

Mr. Gale: I am entirely content to accept the explanations that have been offered to the House, as they should have been, by my right hon. Friend. If I may digress slightly in response to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have cautioned the hon. Gentleman and the House. The hon. Gentleman knows full well how narrow the motion is. We are debating whether, if the House so wishes, to refer the matter to the Committee. We are not arguing the merits or demerits of any individual.

Mr. Gale: My right hon. Friend is answerable not to The Guardian or any other medium but to two sets of people: his constituents and hon. Members. His constituents have faith in his integrity and he has answered to the House.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the tone of the debate, especially from the Opposition, is frightening? We have seen a casual disregard for the rule of law, which is a frightening portent of what would happen if the Labour party were to get into power.

Mr. Gale: Much has been made of the fact that knowledge of the forgery was in the hands of certain people—in particular, the Cabinet Secretary—some time ago. It is important that we consider that because the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has referred to it, as have other Opposition Members. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), my understanding is that referral of the forgery to the Press Complaints Commission was considered carefully by the Cabinet Secretary, who concluded that, as the editor of The Guardian was at that time a member of the commission, there was little point in asking the turkey to vote for Christmas.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Madden: rose—

Mr. Gale: No, with respect to the hon. Gentlemen, I shall not give way. Many hon. Members wish to


intervene in the debate. It is better if I conclude my remarks and let other Members make their own speeches.
Last night the editor ofThe Guardian resigned from the Press Complaints Commission, not as a matter of personal honour but as a result of pressure from inside the House.
We must consider another salient point. Throughout the affair, the Press Complaints Commission has maintained a stunning silence: not one word of condemnation has been heard. [Interruption.] It is another issue, but I suggest that the time has come for the House to create an independent press tribunal with statutory powers—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. We are not discussing any press tribunal. I have cautioned the hon. Gentleman; many people want to speak in the debate, and I now ask hon. Members to stay with the point and get on with debating the motion.

Mr. Gale: We have been discussing whether the editor of The Guardian, a former member of the Press Complaints Commission, should be referred to the Privileges Committee. I seek to give the House instances showing why I believe that that referral should and must take place. I believe that because of the forgery, the deceit and the impersonation that he has practised, using House of Commons notepaper, Mr. Preston's conduct as a member of the Press Complaints Commission is part and parcel of the matter that we are considering.
The press, especially the editor of The Guardian, have set themselves up as the guardians of the public interest, but that guardian angel has turned out to be the whore from hell. I believe that some good may yet come from the matter. If it is referred to the Privileges Committee and the Committee considers it correctly, as I believe it will, and the report is published and debated by the House in full, as it will be, the public may at last realise the depths to which that editor and others are prepared to sink to stand up a story at whatever cost to the truth.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) asked whether any hearing would be held in camera or in public. That is an interesting question, and I am sure that the press will take a keen interest in it. If the matter is referred to the Privileges Committee, as I believe it must be, I should prefer Mr. Preston to have the opportunity to give his evidence in private.
I believe that the Committee may also wish to call Mr. Al Fayed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Fayed."]—and to hear Mr. Fayed's evidence in private. That should not be turned into yet another media circus and yet another feeding frenzy. For that reason, if for no other, I hope that the Committee, if the matter is referred to it, will decide to hold the hearings in private, and then to publish in full.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gale: No. I apologise to my hon. Friend, but as I refused to give way to Opposition Members I must refuse to give way to him too.
I have written to the chairman of Guardian Newspapers to ask whether the company believes that its editor has acted properly and whether he still has the confidence of the board. If former Ministers should be required to resign their offices to clear their names, the editor of The Guardian should be required to do the same.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In deciding whether to support the motion, several of us will find ourselves in a dilemma because of the following question: did the editor of The Guardian and his newspaper, using House of Commons notepaper—using it wrongly; I do not try to justify its use—intend to serve a genuine public interest in trying to secure information that he believed could not be obtained in any other way? I ask you, Madam Speaker, whether in those circumstances we could have a little more information. As matters now stand, many of us will have some difficulty in approving the motion.

Madam Speaker: I feel that hon. Members are trying to debate the motion through the Speaker. I cannot answer questions such as that. Hon. Members have to attempt to extract that information from others. It is certainly not a point of order. Perhaps, if the debate were to proceed, we may get the information. If hon. Members were to speak briskly, I could call as many as possible and the information may come.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: This is about the fourth point of order that I have had from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Madden: It is relevant, Madam Speaker. As everyone so far has been unable or unwilling to answer the questions which a number of hon. Members have put, I assume that those questions were put by the Serjeant at Arms in the inquiries that you asked him to undertake. Therefore, assuming that his report has been completed, may I ask that it is made available to hon. Members before the vote takes place in the hope that the Serjeant at Arms' report reveals the information which a great many hon. Members require?

Madam Speaker: There is only one matter before the House today—the motion printed on the Order Paper. It is for the House to determine whether the subject is of such seriousness that we want it examined by our Privileges Committee. That is all. If we want to leave the matter as it is, the motion is defeated. If we want to go further into it, it is for the Privileges Committee to go into all those details, not the House at the present time. There is a simple motion before us.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I suspect that some hon. Members would expect me to declare an interest in the present debate in the sense that I was the subject of what I considered a scurrilous piece of journalism by a sister paper of The Guardian fairly recently. Some may think that I rise, in some sense, to even the score, but I assure colleagues in the House that I shall be either abstaining or voting against the motion. I want to explain to the House and put into context the


reason why I have come to that decision. As someone who co-authored a biography of Harold Laski, it is with some sense of irony that I speak today when we are looking at a problem involving the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). Much of my time, when I was writing that biography, was involved with an illustrious or notorious predecessor of his in the famous Laski 1946 libel trial, which is interesting for the historical record.
It seems to me that there are two institutions in crisis at present in Britain. The first is our Parliament, where we seem to be in so many senses out of touch with what ordinary people think or believe or care about. This debate is very much about whether by its actions tonight, we will show that we are in touch with ordinary opinion or totally out of touch with it. The second institution that I believe is in crisis is the British media—the newspapers and the other media. One can analyse easily why our media are in crisis. It is a question of the new media of communication, increasing competition, new technology—

Mr. David Shaw: Low standards?

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman says it is also a question of low standards. Perhaps some of those low standards are a consequence of the failure of the Government to act on a crisis, which has been coming for a very long time and has been unanswered by the present Government. That is the crisis of increasing monopoly ownership of the media, cross-ownership of the media between the Fleet street media as they used to be called—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in attendance throughout the debate. He will have heard Madam Speaker's firm ruling on what the debate is about. It is certainly not about the ownership of the press.

Mr. Sheerman: Sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I only—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being sorry, but Madam Speaker has ruled and I am confirming her ruling. I should be most grateful if he carried on with whatever other points he has to make.

Mr. Sheerman: I was merely putting into context the reason why I shall be abstaining or voting against the motion tonight. As I was saying, the institutions that are out of touch with ordinary opinion are Parliament and the media. I was explaining why I believe that the media are in crisis. Increasingly, there is a war in Fleet street which is not just about price and whether The Times is 20p or The Independent is 30p. The war is also about who can produce the most scurrilous story.
That competition in Fleet street, not just in the tabloids which seem to concentrate more on the royal family and sex scandals, but in the broadsheets, seems to have undermined our strong and excellent tradition of investigative journalism. Investigative journalism now seems to be any story—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be having some difficulty relating his contribution to the motion. The motion is very clear about referring the matter to the Privileges Committee. Unless

the hon. Gentleman can relate his remarks firmly to the motion, I must ask him to resume his seat or develop his argument properly.

Mr. Sheerman: I was about to develop that argument. I believe that Fleet street has moved towards picking up stories that are poorly researched and presented in a tradition of investigative journalism in respect of which we once led the world. I believe that that has led us to our present problems in respect of which the House is considering whether to approve the motion.
I believe that we should not pass the motion because the House is becoming out of touch with what ordinary people want and perceive. Day after day, ordinary citizens, including my constituents, face a serious and dangerous life with the press. These people are the subject of scurrilous stories. The person involved may be a plumber in Huddersfield. It may not involve a leading politician from an aristocratic background. However, the facts are the same.
When we are deciding whether to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee, we must bear in mind the impact on the rest of the country. If we are perceived to be members of a cosy little club which is going to rush off and have a special tribunal in order to try the editor of The Guardian just because someone has used a piece of House of Commons notepaper in a fax—

Mrs. Edwina Currie: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the behaviour of The Guardian should not be referred to the Privileges Committee, given that some of us would agree with his attitude towards scurrilous and ill-researched stories, what should be done with The Guardian?

Mr. Sheerman: Most sensible people outside the House would have said, "Ignore it." There has been an on-going investigation into the behaviour of certain hon. Members and members of the Government in particular. My answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) is that the Government should act in terms of setting an example in public standards and introduce legislation which protects the ordinary citizen in this country in the way that the Government seek to protect a member of their own Government.
When an ordinary person in this country is attacked by the press and when an injustice occurs, there should be mechanisms for that ordinary citizen to obtain justice. Time after time, ordinary people are given no opportunity—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already drawn the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that this debate is purely about whether the matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee. The hon. Gentleman said three times that he was coming to that point, but on each occasion he has not come to it. This is the last time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now purely refer to whether the matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee and not refer to his constituents or to any problems they may have.

Mr. Sheerman: I was coming precisely to the point of advancing the argument that if we take part in a cosy conspiracy that leads to decisions being taken in secret in the House, ordinary people who are denied justice day after day throughout the country will feel angry and frustrated with this institution. I speak as one who


understands very well what it is like to be the subject of a scurrilous story in the press. But what is the choice for the ordinary citizen? He has the option of an expensive libel suit or of going to the Press Complaints Commission, which has no real power or standing any longer. In short, there is no justice for the ordinary citizen.
If the House decides this evening to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee in this cosy little world of Parliament, that will prove more than ever before that the House is out of touch with the citizens of this country, and that it is about time it was reformed.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To say that the press or the elected members of this House are out of touch with ordinary people is perverse.
Newspapers have to find their constituency every day or every week among members of the public; and Members of Parliament, besides what they do between elections, have to take part in electoral contests when people have a choice. So to argue that any of us—journalists, editors, politicians, Ministers or shadow spokesmen—is out of touch is absurd.
Before dealing with the motion I should like to say where I stand. It is not easy to make a speech that is not popular or which does not seek party advantage. One of the tasks of this Parliament is to ensure that we frustrate all attempts to control the media.
Part of the freedom of the press is the freedom to be wrong. It is no true freedom if we say that the press has the freedom only to be right or to say things which it can prove in a court of law.
The Guardian is to be both congratulated and criticised—there were two examples of this yesterday. It is to be congratulated for its persistence over the years in the Carl Bridgewater case, over which the paper has challenged the courts. It is to be condemned—although not to the same degree—for its absurd front-page story about the Minister and the part-time dentistry.
What exactly are we trying to refer to the Committee of Privileges? The point at stake is a narrow one. I must declare an interest, as having earned £200 from The Guardian and accepted a meal from its editor. The issue solely concerns the use of the House of Commons letter heading. It does not concern whether a piece of paper was stolen—we do not know whether it was. At stake is the representation as from the House of Commons. We are not discussing the signature of the private secretary either.
The issue for the House concerns whether the editor is prepared to tell the Privileges Committee, "I'm sorry, I made a mistake."
There are of course plenty of other issues to debate, criticise or defend, but they are not especially important for the Committee.
Some issues should be discussed inside the newspaper itself and in the media generally: how far was The Guardian being used by other people? How far was it conscious of being thus used? Did the paper—regardless of my views—pursue what it thought was a legitimate line of inquiry?
The editor of The Guardian is not in the same position as other people. In times past the paper may have sought special privileges for itself, as it did in 1974–75 over the

capital transfer tax and the wealth tax. It may have had the advantage of £70 million falling off the back of a lorry into its trust in 1990.
Its editor's position is in effect a protected freehold. There are also arguments within the trust about the independence and character of The Guardian. All these are matters for the paper to decide.
The House has two tasks, of which the first, for the Committee of Privileges, is to find an answer to the question: does the editor accept he was wrong to use the House of Commons letterhead, as he did?
Secondly, and away from the Committee, will we go on frustrating the efforts made by Members on both sides of the House to shackle the media? By all means let us get involved in arguments with the press and criticise it, but we must not use the Privileges Committee to try to control what journalists do in their legitimate role of vacuum cleaners, picking up the dirt and sifting it, sometimes making mistakes but often getting it right when they decide what to publish for the public.

Mr. Alex Carlile: We have just heard a sensible and refreshing speech by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley)—probably the only one of its kind that we shall hear from a Conservative Member today.
That Mr. Preston was wrong, and that The Guardian was unjustified and fell below acceptable standards in falsifying a fax transmission so that it appeared to come from a Member of this House has been frankly admitted.
I do not know what kind of admission Conservative Members expect from Mr. Preston. Do they expect him to walk naked through the snow, crying, "I'm guilty!"? We have already heard a great deal of exaggeration from Tory Members today.
Mr. Preston's act was certainly reprehensible, although in many ways the use of the House of Commons logo was less reprehensible than the use of the signature of an entirely innocent civil servant who has nothing to do with these issues.
All this is much to the discredit of The Guardian and Mr. Preston and it must colour how we decide to vote tonight. But what worries me about this debate, about the motion and about the whole issue is the fact that it has been characterised by an extraordinary outburst of self-righteousness and by subjective and political indignation of the kind that does this House no good. It brings politicians into further disrepute and it shows that at least some Members of the House are out of touch with the real indignation felt by members of the public about Members of Parliament. The public feel that some Members of this House do not seem to know the difference between the legitimate exercise of judgment, occasionally appetised by a free lunch, and burying their snouts so deep in corporate troughs that they have been able to enjoy a diet almost entirely comprising lobbyist-fed truffles.
Before we decide whether to refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges, let us look for a moment at the real effect of Mr. Preston's subterfuge. Amid the accusations of blackmail and forgery it has emerged—putting it at its lowest—that at least some of Mr. Al


Fayed's statements are true. Still, it is not surprising that there should at an early stage have been a degree of mutual distrust between The Guardian and Mr. Al Fayed.
What is described in the motion as a letter was not used to deceive anyone in any responsible position, inexcusable though it was. Two conclusions should be drawn from this episode. The first is that Mr. Preston did go beyond the limits of legitimate journalism; that will certainly be a factor colouring how we vote later. The second conclusion is that the evidence confirmed as a result of the subterfuge raises matters in the public interest which are important and which require further explanation from the Chief Secretary—along with other allegations made in this morning's Daily Mirror which are also of great seriousness. Uncomfortable though Conservative Members may find it, it is a fact that, despite the subterfuge, The Guardian has done the country a service.

Sir John Gorst: rose—

Mr. Carlile: I am sorry; a great many Members want to speak.
In my view, the House, in deciding how to vote on the motion, should accept that The Guardian should be congratulated on bringing into the public domain issues concerning the behaviour of Members of the House which are legitimate matters for public interest. Those are the issues that we must address in gauging the point on the scale of indignation where our judgment should rest at the end of the debate.
It should not be forgotten by those of us who go into the Lobby that the Government have known about the action on the part of Mr. Preston since 18 May. It should not be forgotten that the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) knew about the fax on 11 May. I have a copy of his response to it and it is extremely relaxed and far from as indignant as the expressions on his behalf by right hon. and hon. Conservative Members.
When we decide how to act tonight it should not be forgotten that the way in which the issue has emerged has involved a degree of politicisation of the Cabinet Secretary, a man of integrity, which has sent shudders through First Division civil servants. Nor should it be forgotten that the Government's incandescent reaction to Mr. Preston's conduct does not lie comfortably if a test of consistency is applied. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) is not in his place now, but I heard him fulminating about how disgraceful it was for a piece of House of Commons notepaper to be used in a forged fax. Of course, he is right. He is also certainly right that an issue of that sort should go to the Committee of Privileges. But there should be a degree of consistency, so I ask Conservative Members why a very different view was taken in 1992 when someone employed by the Serious Fraud Office forged a fax from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir. D. Steel) on House of Commons paper.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not considering that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh yes, we are."] Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is experienced and learned and he knows that we are not considering on this motion evidence of activities that took place in 1992.

Mr. Carlile: In deciding how we vote tonight we are surely entitled to debate, among other things, the issue of how consistent the Government have been in their actions.
On the occasion to which I referred, the Attorney-General—I am glad to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the Chamber because I gave notice that I intended to raise this issue as part of my argument—and the Government were satisfied enough for the Attorney-General to state on 7 July 1993 that that forgery was just an unfortunate practical joke committed on April Fool's day.
It would appear that a different set of values were applied to an attack on my right hon. Friend in a fax which was sent to those attending a court of law, in comparison with a fax that relates to a member of the Government.

Mr. Madden: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlile: I shall not give way because many hon. Members wish to speak.
A Government who fail to take disciplinary measures against an officer of the law, who sent a forged fax to persons attending a court building, and in the name of a Privy Councillor, with the clear intention to deceive, are hardly in a position to do any more than set new standards of unjustifiable sanctimoniousness in respect of the fax under dispute, which deceived nobody.

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken about his facts. The issue is remote from the debate. I would be grateful if he clarified those facts for himself before he proceeds further with that issue.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Tell us the facts then.

The Attorney-General: The error in his understanding is that the letter in question was produced by a police officer. The matter was looked at extremely carefully and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and the hon. and learned Gentleman were carefully written to. He is misleading himself about the accuracy of the background.

Mr. Carlile: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. While it is perfectly fair and appropriate to refer to a number of incidents that took place when charging hon. Members to make up their minds, the hon. and learned Gentleman then developed his argument with the result that the Attorney-General quite rightly raised a point of order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible for his own words, but it is my responsibility to ensure that he debates the motion. I trust that he will now return to it.

Mr. Carlile: I would like to answer the Attorney-General and would do so, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall obey your injunction.
I hope that no newspaper will ever again make use of the House of Commons logo or of a Member's name in the manner under debate. I also hope, however, that the Nolan committee, a rigorous inquiry by the Committee of Privileges and a thorough investigation by the Select Committee on Members' Interests will result in any future debates of this kind not being caused by highly questionable dealings with murky arms dealers, freebies at the Ritz and fistfuls of Harrods vouchers.
Before we decide how to vote tonight many questions remain to be answered. The person who has already had the courage to ask many relevant questions has been the fallible Mr. Peter Preston. We should bear that in mind in deciding how we vote. I hope that after the reproof which the debate clearly implies, Mr. Preston will not only regret the sending of the fax, but will pursue issues such as: how can the Home Secretary really expect the House to believe that he was trying to ensure that Mr. Ali Al Fayed's nationality application was fairly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman may be an experienced lawyer but those remarks are entirely out of order and beyond the scope of the debate. If he has nothing else to say, I should be grateful if he concluded because a number of hon. Members wish to speak. Does he have anything further to say?

Mr. Carlile: It is my submission to the House that if there is to be a reference to the Committee of Privileges, the sort of question to which I started to allude should not be cast away in a cursory inquiry. It is not enough for the Committee of Privileges simply to demand Mr. Preston's attendance so that he can say sorry.
On balance, I shall vote for the motion because I trust the Committee of Privileges to carry out a full inquiry. I also trust it to include the actions not only of Mr. Preston, but of all those right hon. and hon. Members who have been tainted by evidence that their pockets may have dictated their judgment. I also trust the Committee to include evidence not only from those right hon. and hon. Members, but from Mr. Al Fayed and Mr. Rowland. I trust it to carry out a rigorous inquiry, free from party interest and founded, for a change, upon a genuine search for the truth.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I hesitate to say anything that may get Mr. Peter Preston off the hook, partly because he was the newspaper editor who shopped Sarah Tisdall and ensured that she went to prison and partly because, some years ago, I had occasion to look into the background of Mr. Al Fayed and I am bound to say that I came to the conclusion that he was pathologically corrupt. I will say something on behalf of Mr. Peter Preston, however, and argue why we should not refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges.
In terms of consistency, equity and fairness the public will be a bit uneasy about what the House is doing tonight. Some years ago, a question arose about the use of Downing street notepaper by Mr. Denis Thatcher. On that occasion, I do not remember some demented hyena from Thanet, North fulminating at the mouth—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure if I heard the hon. Gentleman right, but if he used the term "demented hyena", I would be most grateful if he would withdraw it.

Mr. Sedgemore: I shall certainly withdraw the remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not hear the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) fulminating at the mouth and asking that Mr. Denis Thatcher be reported to the

Privileges Committee, brought to the Bar of the House, or humiliated in some other way. We must treat the editor of The Guardian in the same way as the husbands of Prime Ministers.
On the subject of notepaper, we can all fulminate somewhat pompously about the use of that paper. Like everyone else, I have to deprecate its use by anyone other than a Member of Parliament, although on at least one occasion I used a sheet of House of Commons notepaper for private and personal business. I suppose that that constitutes theft, but I am not sure. Even this morning, I received a note from the researcher of another Member of Parliament on a little sheet of House of Commons notepaper, which asked me out to lunch. I am not sure where that comes in the great pantheon of such things, but we can whip ourselves up into an unjustified frenzy.
I understand that additional factors are involved and I will come to them, but I am concerned that the public will think that the British establishment and Parliament are once again saying that the accuser should become the accused. It would not be the first time that that has happened here or in some other countries.
In the mid-1980s, I investigated a bank and Lloyd's. We were not talking about a sheet of notepaper, but of millions of pounds and of hundreds of millions. A small analogy is that at the end of the investigation, a detective chief inspector and a detective sergeant came to question me in a room in this House and suggested that I might be a conspirator in the case and that the whole investigation might have been a result of my conspiring with someone who ran abroad to destabilise the British Government. That is absurd. The accuser became the accused.
In Italy recently, Mr. Berlusconi found himself in difficulties. He was accused and what did he do? He turned on the judges and said that they were breaking the law and the constitution. There is always a tendency for people who are engaged in wrongdoing to protect themselves by attacking others.
The public may think that that is what is happening in this case. Mr. Peter Preston has launched some allegations, some of which may be true and some false, but we are being asked to turn him into the defendant and the criminal to deflect those allegations.
I am sure that Madam Speaker has been given the highest legal advice and I would not challenge anything that she said. I speak as a very modest and humble lawyer. Whatever the legal advice she has been given, once the matter is referred to the Privileges Committee, it will find itself in conflict with the law. Today, we have heard several allegations about criminal offences—mostly judicially illiterate stuff, but never mind that—committed by Mr. Peter Preston. When the Committee launches its inquiry, even within the terms of the motion on the Order Paper, it will have to discuss whether he has committed those offences.
Neither the House nor the Privileges Committee has any right to act as a court of law in a criminal case. For the Privileges Committee or the House as a whole to set themselves up as a court of law in a criminal case is both improper and unconstitutional. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) raised a point of law. Perhaps he should have raised it as a point of debate. That seems the most powerful reason for us to decide that there is another way out.
In that splendid voice, which is renowned throughout the world, Madam Speaker gave Mr. Peter Preston a wigging. She made it clear exactly what she thought of him. She does not like what he did and nor do most of the rest of us. Surely that is enough. We do not want to become involved in a conflict between this House and the judiciary and we do not want to make ourselves look absurd or pompous.

Mr. Clive Soley: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) as he used many of my arguments, so my remarks can be shorter.
Notwithstanding my long interest in the freedom and the responsibilities of the press, the very fact that we are dealing with the press today shows that the issue of privilege is involved. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) carefully argued that there is a delicate balance between press freedom and the freedom of the press to investigate politicians.
My argument follows directly on from that of my colleague the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. If we bring a newspaper editor before the Privileges Committee and possibly to the Bar of the House to be disciplined in some way for raising questions about the Government's conduct, the House will be misunderstood. People outside will not understand—although they have reason to criticise the press and be critical of the way in which it deals with individuals and groups—primarily because they also understand that one of the roles of the press is to call to account the Executive and to some extent the legislature. For that reason, the House needs to be very careful before it disciplines the press.
Part of the function of the press is to challenge us. That does not make Peter Preston right over the fax. Clearly, he was wrong and has said so openly.
I remind Conservative Members who are minded to vote for the motion to remember that the Opposition have infinitely more experience of our party being attacked by the press. It happens all the time [Laughter.] Yes, it happens all the time. That situation has changed in recent years, not because the press has been critical of the Tory party, but because of criticism of the present Prime Minister. I accept that that is happening in a major way, but that does not alter the fact that usually the Labour party is attacked. That should not trouble us in this debate but it warns both parties and all Members of Parliament that we would be setting a dangerous precedent by arraigning an editor.
If I wanted to be Machiavellian I might suggest that Conservative Members should think carefully about what is involved. If I became aware of a breach of privilege of the House I would have two options—bring the matter to the notice of the House or say nothing about it. I might have good reason for doing the latter, but what would happen if another Member of Parliament brought up the matter, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) did today? It would then be debated in the Privileges Committee and afterwards in the Chamber arid hon. Members might want to know why the breach was not reported in the first instance—in this case, back in May. In all honesty, if the Conservative party wants to debate

that in such a way, from a purely party political point of view I should be happy to do so. However, I do not think that it makes much sense for it to do so.
In this case, it would be a serious mistake for the House to overreact and to arraign the editor of The Guardian before a Committee of the House. It would be totally misunderstood outside, as some of my colleagues said. If anyone has doubts, he should refer to the debate in the House on 24 January 1957, when it arraigned Sir John Junor, then the editor of the Sunday Express, to appear before it. I have little time for him as I think that he was an appalling editor, but that is neither here nor there. The House called him before it because he claimed that if petrol rationing came in, Members of Parliament would vote themselves large allowances to get round it. When we look back on that case, we think that it was crazy and that we were going over the top.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman has an account of the words that John Junor used, perhaps he would share them with the House.

Mr. Soley: The words are not recorded in Hansard. However, if the hon. Gentleman buys today's copy of The Guardian he will find them accurately reported there. Mr. Junor was alleging that hon. Members would abuse their position by ensuring that they had additional rations.

Mr. Bottomley: Mr. Junor did say he was sorry.

Mr. Soley: That is right.
I say in all seriousness that the House should not get into this ball game and arraign editors of the press. As I showed clearly through my Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill, many people outside the House have good reason to be angry about press irresponsibility. What happens to them is often far more serious than what happens to Members of Parliament and Ministers, who are better able to defend themselves. If we took a hard line with editors when they attacked Members of Parliament, but not when they attacked vulnerable groups or individuals outside the House, that would be utterly misunderstood, and rightly so.
It would be much better to back off now, which is why I shall vote against the motion. Although Mr. Preston was wrong to send the fax, it would be stupid and wrong of the House to arraign a member of the press. If we did, when we looked back on it in 20 years' time, as we look back now to the 1957 example, we would say, "What on earth were we doing? What on earth were we thinking about?"
I would be tempted to vote for the motion only if, included in the Committee's deliberations was the question of why hon. Members and members of the Government, who were aware of the breach of privilege in May, did not choose to report it to the House.

Mr. George Galloway: I declare an interest as a journalist who has very occasionally worked for The Guardian.
I oppose the motion without in any way minimising the serious error of judgment of which Peter Preston is guilty. I have been the victim of not one, but two forged letters on my headed notepaper. Both of them were given to the police and thoroughly investigated, although the culprits have not yet been found. The hurt and anger caused when


someone's headed notepaper has been used to impersonate and misrepresent, and the plausibility of a letter purported to come from a Member of Parliament, are serious matters. However, it is critical that the House keeps the matter in perspective and avoids over-reaction.
The earlier part of the debate, although not the later, was not an edifying sight. Tory Members worked themselves into a lather—this time it was against the left-wing newspaper The Guardian, but only a few months ago it was against the right-wing newspaper The Sunday Times. They have shot the messenger and disregarded the message. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) cried "smear". If any hon. Member knows about smears, it is him. It has not been a pretty sight.
I began to question the judgment of Mr. Peter Preston long ago, even though I occasionally took work from him. As has been said, he caused a young, vulnerable woman, Sarah Tisdall, to go to prison because of his failure to protect her as his source in the Ponting case. Perhaps Mr. Fayed, a richer and much more powerful individual, required more protection than that young, vulnerable woman, but that does not strike me as being very plausible.
I believe that Mr. Preston will regret the extent to which he climbed into bed—I hope that you will forgive that phrase, Mr. Deputy Speaker—with Mr. Fayed. His name is not Al Fayed; that is one of the many misrepresentations of which he has been guilty while in this country. He is a liar and a crook. The Government's investigation of him during the takeover of Harrods made that quite clear. He was thrown out of Haiti by Papa Doc, who could not bear his stench of corruption. He blackmailed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying beyond the motion. Will he return to it, please?

Mr. Galloway: I accept your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the fact that Mr. Preston's judgment is flawed for all to see is germane to whether we should leave the matter there as has been suggested, or compound it by referring it to the Privileges Committee. Nevertheless, I accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will say no more about Mr. Fayed—other than that the editor and Members of Parliament who were in bed with him will have cause to regret it. He is a man who keeps the receipts; he is a man who keeps the tape recordings; he is a man who, as we may soon discover, even keeps the video recordings from the bedrooms of the Ritz.
It is not plausible for hon. Members to work themselves into a lather about the mere misuse of a House of Commons logo. After all, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) emblazoned one on the elegant ankle of a stockinged lady on the cover of her sexy novel, which is selling like cold cakes in the remainder shops.
I do not know whether the former Prime Minister's son, when travelling in her gravy train, ever used House of Commons notepaper, but his father certainly did.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an abuse of the debate. I should be grateful if, for the second time of asking, the hon. Gentleman would return to the motion.

Mr. Galloway: You are the boss, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it seems to me that precedent and consistency are issues—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That may be so, but conjecture is not.

Mr. Galloway: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall avoid conjecture.
Many people misuse our notepaper. Indeed, one hon. Member used it to send out an offer of South African wine at knocked-down prices under apartheid. It was the Member for Pretoria, South or Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle); I forget which. The fact is that many people have done similar things. It is always wrong, but it is important to keep a sense of perspective—

Mr. David Shaw: That was not forgery.

Mr. Galloway: Forgery is a criminal offence. I am not a lawyer, but I know that for something to be a crime there must be criminal intent. I do not believe that any hon. Member thinks that Peter Preston, as fallible and mistaken as he was, did what he did with criminal intent.

Mr. Shaw: It was forgery.

Mr. Galloway: It was forgery only if it was done with criminal intent.

Mr. Shaw: Peter Preston has already admitted forgery; the question is whether that is a criminal offence. As I understand it, forgery in itself is not necessarily a criminal offence—although it is a very serious matter—and that an important factor is whether there was financial gain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that financial gain may have been the intent both of Mr. Fayed and of Mr. Preston, in terms of increasing his newspaper's circulation.

Mr. Galloway: Forgery, by definition, is a crime. If Mr. Preston is guilty of forgery, he is guilty of a crime. However, he can be guilty of forgery only if his action was based on criminal intent. Many people sign documents when they apply for jobs as our researchers and they are not always open and above board, but we do not drag them before the Privileges Committee. Perhaps we should. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dover brought a prostitute into the House under bogus—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will know that I am not a lawyer either and we are not here to debate the legal definition of certain acts. We are here to debate whether, under the motion, the editor of The Guardian should appear before the Privileges Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now succinctly put his reasons why that should or should not happen.

Mr. Galloway: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having been dragged into the gutter most often frequented by the hon. Member for Dover. The electorate will deliver its verdict on the hon. Gentleman very shortly.
Peter Preston has been a fool; he may even have been a knave, but the public outside are more concerned about the activities and actions of Members of the House of Commons than they are about the actions of newspaper editors. If we fool ourselves about that we do ourselves and this place no credit at all. We shall merely deepen the deep cynicism and hostility that is growing in the country towards Parliament if we are seen to pursue the mediaeval route of dragging a newspaper editor to the Bar of the House, uncovered, as the regulations say, and arraigning him for an offence of bad judgment when so many Members of the House of Commons daily demonstrate bad judgment themselves.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I have three interests to declare. First, some 20 years ago I had the honour to be president of the National Union of Journalists. I am now a Member of Parliament but I still consider myself in part a journalist—an honourable, decent and necessary profession.
Secondly, I have taken The Guardian shilling, so I must declare some fees from that paper. However, even after several years of attempting to get my articles accepted, my fees do not yet amount to the £1,000 offered and accepted by two Conservative Members for asking questions.
Thirdly, on the issue of subterfuge, which is part of the debate, I was dismissed by the BBC some 20 years ago when, on the instruction of a producer, I faked a phone call to a phone-in programme on the BBC. I paid a heavy professional price and thus I was interested when I heard the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), the chairman of the Conservative party, at the recent Bournemouth conference, invite Gideons, as he called them, to make fake phone calls to put in propaganda on behalf of the party.

Mr. David Ashby: What has that got to do with the motion?

Mr. MacShane: What it has to do with it is that 20 years ago that was the standard set for subterfuge. Two or three weeks ago, that standard disappeared when a Cabinet member invited the British public to practise subterfuge on our airwaves.
The logo is germane to the debate. I am concerned about that because this weekend my children got hold of some House of Commons notepaper and were busy scribbling on it. I am not sure whether they will have to be brought before the Committee of Privileges. If they are, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will not be taking notes of what they have to say, but instead will read them one of the fairy tales with which he so often beguiles the nation.
It is difficult for Opposition Members ever to book a Dining Room in the corridor downstairs. Time and again they are all being used for Tory fund-raising dinners organised on House of Commons notepaper. Reference has been made to the wonderful book of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). We authors appreciate each other's writings. I enjoyed the hon. Lady's book and I understand why she put the House of Commons logo on its cover.
We come then to the question of forgery. I read in The Times this morning that in the 18th century someone was executed for forging a letter. We have heard much talk of crime. I understand that the mover of the motion, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), is also referring the matter to the police. We have heard a great deal of talk that what took place was a criminal action. I cannot understand then why in May, when the Chief Secretary, the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister knew of this so-called criminal action, it was not reported to anyone. Either it was a crime then or it was not. If it was, they were grossly derelict in their duty.
The NUJ and the Press Complaints Commission have a code of conduct which covers matters such as this. The NUJ code states:
A journalist shall obtain information, photographs and illustrations only by straightforward means. The use of other means can be justified only by over-riding considerations of the public interest. The journalist is entitled to exercise a personal conscientious objection to the use of such means.
The code of conduct of the Press Complaints Commission is along much the same lines. It would be helpful if the two could be combined and we could, to use a phrase from the Government, have a charter of journalism that could be taught in schools. It would not be a statutory code, but it would be part of a journalist's way of life.
There we have the words:
The use of other means can be justified only by over-riding considerations of the public interest.
The person who decided that dodgy stays in the Ritz were a matter of public interest was not Mr. Preston but the Prime Minister when he dismissed the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) for taking that money and staying in the Ritz. He dismissed another Minister for having a financial relationship with Mr. Fayed. It was the Prime Minister who decided that there was overriding public interest.
So we come to the question of Mr. Preston. Yes, he was wrong, and every single journalist to whom I have spoken since the affair broke agrees that he was wrong. The Sarah Tisdall affair was referred to earlier. There was no question then, when Mr. Preston did the Government a favour by shopping her, of bringing him to the Bar of the House, but Mr. Preston suffered—

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the use of the word "shopping" in that context?

Mr. MacShane: I am sorry. Perhaps that is a question that Ms Tisdall and Mr. Preston can answer better than I can.
The obloquy that Mr. Preston suffered then came from his journalist peers, just as the unhappiness that he feels today is because many British journalists think that he has done wrong. The tone of remarks made so far in the debate is probably winning, minute by minute, the journalists and the people of Britain to Mr. Preston's side. I would regret that.
The House can make a gesture tonight, but the real problem is that the House is parlous in so many things. We live in a form of democratic, one-party state. We have a centralised Government who have replaced local and other democracies with their placemen and their wives. The press, for all its faults, is our only bulwark against the kind of centralisation of power that we are daily witnessing.
I am a new Member. As a son of two immigrants who, in years gone by, would have loved to have had parliamentary democracy, I value what the House stands for. On a


question such as this, if it is the House versus the press, the British people, able to vote every five years for a new House, will prefer to support those who have brought the attention of the public to matters of grave concern.
I enjoyed the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). However, his conclusion in no way followed from his argument. I shall be going into the No Lobby tonight.

Mr. Tony Banks: I have no criticism of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who is an honourable man, but I am surprised that he learnt only recently of the alleged fraud in question.

Mr. Wilshire: I lead a sheltered life.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman must lead a cloistered existence—one that does not involve reading newspapers, which is unusual for a Member of Parliament.
An atmosphere of hysteria is settling over the House, and that is destructive. Mud tends to stick to all of us, even the most innocent—of which, I hasten to add, I am not one. Therefore, it is important that these matters are speedily and publicly resolved.
I am not interested in the actions of the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) or in who paid for his weekend in Paris. I recognise that there could be implications for the rules governing the conduct of Ministers, but that is for others to decide. Much as I would like to, I cannot condone the methods by which information on the hotel bill of the right hon. Member for Thanet, South was secured, although I suppose that a public interest defence could be entered. Only time will tell whether the methods used were justifiable.
It is not simply a matter of using House of Commons notepaper. That has been done by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. They had their wrists slapped, but they were not reported to the Committee of Privileges. There is an added dimension, in the form of a signature that purported to come from the office of the right hon. Gentleman. That is different from just using a piece of House notepaper.
We are told that time is of the essence in everything that we do, and this matter is out of time. That is why I shall not support the motion in the Lobby tonight. One keeps returning to relevant questions. When did the right hon. Member for Thanet, South first become aware of the use of House of Commons notepaper in a letter purporting to come from him? It appears that he knew around 10 May. In a letter to the editor of The Guardian, the right hon. Gentleman said that he clearly knew of that and would report it to the Government.
When the Ritz found out that it had received an illegal or fraudulent fax purporting to come from the right hon. Gentleman, it alerted him immediately. He faxed back this germane reply:
The Guardian article has caused surprisingly little serious interest here, probably because it was one of the most boring journalistic examples of an Editor's personalised obsession ever to find its way into print in a newspaper. Moreover there is really little or nothing for

even an ill-wisher to follow up since nobody has done anything wrong, even in the light of The Guardian's somewhat flawed and inaccurate story.
Because of the above-mentioned reaction my present plan is, as my teenage children would say, to 'stay cool'. However, I am taking further legal advice and so is the Government in the light of the new dimension to the story which your fax has revealed.
That fax was dated 11 May. If the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to stay cool on 11 May, why are Conservative Members getting hot about the issue on 2 November?

Mr. Dalyell: Was there not at least a moral obligation on the part of the Leader of the House to give his parliamentary colleagues in all parts of the House some explanation for that delay? Apart from anything else, that would have been good parliamentary manners. Normally, the parliamentary manners of the Leader of the House are impeccable. On this occasion, he owed it to us, as a matter of debt, to provide an explanation. There may be one, but we have not heard it.

Mr. Banks: I entirely agree. Appropriate answers might colour our judgment on how to vote later. The hon. Member for Spelthorne, by his own admission, did not know anything about it before, so he cannot answer questions arising out of his own motion. That is an absurd way to conduct tonight's business.
As to the time factor, in a letter to the editor of The Guardian dated 18 May, the Cabinet Secretary clearly said that he also knew about the use of House notepaper and the fraudulent use of name purporting to represent the right hon. Member for Thanet, South. It is inconceivable that the Prime Minister himself did not possess knowledge of the alleged forgery in May.
Why was no fuss made in May about serious matters that we are asked to consider on 2 November? Why were the House authorities not alerted to those serious matters in May? Why were you, Madam Speaker, not told about them in May, when you might have decided to refer them to the Privileges Committee? You, Madam Speaker, were kept in the dark from May until November, which shows great disrespect to you and to your office.

Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are also entitled to know whether the Attorney-General gave any advice? Was the matter referred at any time to the Director of Public Prosecutions or to the House authorities? It is wrong that the Leader of the House or somebody else representing the Government did not give the House the information that it has been seeking for the past three hours.

Mr. Banks: I agree entirely. As you tell us, Madam Speaker, time is of the essence when contacting your office in respect of a private notice question. We must demonstrate that we were unable to come to you with knowledge at the time that we first knew about it. We are often ruled out because of time. The motion should have been ruled out for the same reason. Conservative Members, and particularly the principals concerned, had ample time to raise the matter with you. Of course one accepts your ruling, Madam Speaker, but it seems to me that the motion should not have been accepted in the first place.
If the right hon. Member for Thanet, South felt aggrieved and if the matter was so serious, why was no action taken at the earliest possible date? We must return to the question again and again. If we cannot defeat the motion, the Privileges Committee must consider the issue. I suggest that when it does, it throws the complaint out.
The alleged fraud surfaced publicly only last weekend, in The Sunday Telegraph. That is a fine choice of newspaper. One knows why the information was put in that loyal Tory newspaper. If Mr. Preston did something wrong, he did it more than six months ago. All the principal characters in this saga knew about it. It was not a matter, as the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said, of considering whether the matter should be referred to the Press Complaints Commission. All the principal characters had a duty to bring the matter before the House and to complain here—not to shove it on to the PCC. If such action were appropriate then, now that Mr. Preston has resigned from the PCC perhaps the motion should be withdrawn and the matter referred to the commission now. Conservative Members cannot have it both ways.

Sir David Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Press Complaints Commission will sit in secret and that we shall never have a full account of its proceedings?

Mr. Banks: I am sure that among all those trustworthy journalists, one would be prepared to leak what happens on the commission.
We are witnessing an organised exercise in synthetic anger, devised to divert attention. What value can we place on today's outrage when it has spent six months in preparation? It is synthetic outrage.
The last question that I want to address is to someone who is not present in the Chamber—the principal character, the right hon. Member for Thanet, South. Did he want the matter to be referred to the Committee of Privileges? He had ample opportunity to do so. He is not present to answer that question. Did the right hon. Gentleman ask the hon. Member for Spelthorne to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee? If the aggrieved party decided not to refer the matter to the Committee himself, the hon. Member for Spelthorne should not have done so.

Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman asked me a simple question—

Madam Speaker: Order. Was the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) giving way?

Mr. Banks: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman asked me a simple question, to which the answer is no.

Mr. Banks: Well, I must say in conclusion, then, that it is very noble of the hon. Member for Spelthorne to work up so much anger on behalf of the right hon. Member for Thanet, South when his right hon. Friend knew about it on 11 May and said that his position was to "stay cool". I suggest that that is good advice and the House should follow it tonight.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I declare an interest because, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, I do a bit of freelance writing, although I feel bound to observe that, as The Guardian pays so badly, my work very seldom appears in that newspaper. I also, perhaps, have slightly more experience of the matter than many hon. Members, because earlier this year I was referred to the Committee of Privileges, as Madam Speaker will remember, on the same question of the use of the House of Commons logo.
It seems to me that there are a number of problems, some of which have been sensibly highlighted by the speeches that we have heard, about the whole idea of referring to the Committee of Privileges. Hon. Members suggested that that will be seen as if the House of Commons is acting trivially. Of course, that is a difficulty. One of the reasons for my distinctive behaviour earlier this year was that I took the view then—indeed, I take it now—that the reputation of the House is determined not by a squiggle on a piece of paper, but by the behaviour of all its Members and Officers.
Nevertheless, it is well to put on record, as I have been criticised for it twice so far in speeches by Opposition Members, that following the representations that were made to me, including your own, Madam Speaker, I asked my publisher to take the logo off and to modify it, and Opposition Members who trouble to buy a copy of the paperback edition, which is now available at £8.99—[Laughter.]—will find that the logo has been altered.
Another difficulty with the Committee of Privileges, and a much more serious one, is that hon.
Members may be seen to be protecting themselves, and reference to the Committee is seen in that way. In many ways, that does not invalidate the motion. A difficulty will be created, however, if hon. Members will not serve on that Committee. It would make far more sense if hon. Members who said that they are concerned that Members are seen by the public to be protecting themselves were clamouring instead to serve on the Committee of Privileges and, indeed, were voting for the motion. That is rather more the attitude of Front-Bench Opposition Members, who, I understand, plan to vote for the motion. It is a long-standing practice in the House that there is no party difference on references to the Committee of Privileges. It is a shame if some hon. Members prejudge its activities by refusing to serve on it.
A different problem, which, correctly, has been raised, is whether the Committee of Privileges is a serious enough body to bring home to The Guardian and other press representatives their duty to behave responsibly. That is why I put a question earlier to a Labour Member, who was so agitated about the press and had such strong reasons for feeling concern at the way in which it sometimes operates against many of us and many other people in public and private life. He said that he was going to abstain or vote against the motion. I asked him what he would do if the press behaved so badly and if there are so many criticisms correctly to be made, if he did not vote for the Committee of Privileges in this case. His answer was, "Ignore it." That is not good enough. We cannot ignore it, so we should vote for the motion.
Much inconsistency has also been flying around tonight. One of the reasons why I came to listen to the whole debate and eventually sought permission to speak was that we have heard speech after speech from Opposition Members deploring subterfuge and bad behaviour, and praising high standards. I must tell them that that applies to the press as well, and that the behaviour of hon. Members and members of the press is not mutually exclusive. We are all expected by our constituents and our readers outside to behave according to the highest possible standards. If it applies to the press as well, it should be appropriate to vote for the motion and take one small step, possibly, to try to re-establish the reputation of what in the past has been a great newspaper.


The real privilege in the House is the right to speak freely. In fact, it is the only privilege that is really worth having. It has been somewhat abused today by much of what has been said, and some of the views that have been flying around have rightly been pulled up by yourself, Madam Speaker, and your deputy. But that privilege has existed in the House for centuries. That is the source of the prohibition on general publication that we had in the House until 1972. Hansard publishes only with the permission of the House.
It is necessary for us to be able to speak in this place without fear. That is a privilege that I have used sparingly from time to time, and I am glad that I have had that opportunity. Scrutiny by the press is one thing, but subterfuge is another, and that is the issue at the heart of The Guardian's bad behaviour. That is why it is right that it should be considered by a Committee of the House. That is why I shall vote for the motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: I am not seeking to frustrate hon. Members who have been here throughout the debate and who still seem to want to speak, but I ask them for a little voluntary restraint, as we have been debating the motion for two hours.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the House would like to draw to a conclusion and proceed to a Division, I shall make only three succinct points.
I am the only hon. Member in the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) did not have to do it—who has actually had to stand where that white line is on the Floor of the Chamber and face a full House of Commons, as a result of the Privileges Committee. Whatever anybody says, I do not believe other than that people would find it an awesome and rather terrifying experience. I can assure hon. Members that, having had to be in that position, I know that it is not something that is lightly undertaken.
That is not only my view as a Member of the House of Commons. It was also the view of John Junor. I know because I talked to him about it. As an outsider, he, too, found it an awesome experience. Therefore, what we are proposing for Peter Preston is an extremely serious matter, and we cannot pretend otherwise. Some people may laugh it off, but it is no laughing matter to be brought before the legislature of one's country.
That leads me to the first question. Are we sure that we have got it in proportion? Many other people have done other—shall we say "controversial"—things, who, perhaps, might have greater deserts than being brought to the Bar of the House. So on proportionality I have doubts.
Secondly, I have further doubts, because there are conflicting matters. All right, there is the issue of misbehaviour over House of Commons notepaper, and forgery. There is one point on which I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—I do not think that the matter is straightforward. Nothing to do with the Privileges Committee, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) knows, is straightforward.
The matter of protection of sources is a very important issue. It was most succinctly put in an excellent book, well written, called "Officially Secret". This is what the author said:
In my reply to General Alexander, dated 20 January, my first priority was to assure a helpful contact that I would obey one of the fundamental rules of journalistic ethics and would not reveal him as my source. I therefore wrote in my reply: 'As for your having shown me a copy I will maintain a grave-like silence about this. Indeed in the very unlikely event of anyone asking me I will know nothing whatever of the existence of your copy.'
My second priority",
says the author,
was to protect my own subsequent contacts over the Scott Report delivery to the Telegraph. In order to keep all knowledge of Curtis Brown Limited, Hugh Fraser and Yorkshire Television out of reach of the possible investigations, I ended my letter to the General on an ingenuous note, giving the impression that I had no idea how Hugh Fraser got his copy of the document, and finished with the words:
If I hear any Fleet Street or Biafra lobby gossip on the Scott leak I will let you know. I am most grateful to you for writing as you did about all this, and can assure you that my lips are very firmly sealed—Yours ever, Jonathan.
"Jonathan" was Jonathan Aitken, and it was an extremely good book. He put the point about sources as eloquently as I have ever seen a point about the protection of sources put.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Surely the point is that the protector of sources is meant to have been Mr. Fayed himself, who was deceiving his own employees. That is what is now being put around. I, for one, do not understand how the editor of The Guardian can have been required to deceive Mr. Fayed's employees with Mr. Fayed's collusion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain that.

Mr. Dalyell: I admit that my answer to that question wil be tangential. This is a grey area.
For 11 days I sat in the Old Bailey during the trial of Clive Ponting. Reference—ill conceived, in my view—has been made to Sarah Tisdall by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). The position was more complicated than he suggested. There but for the grace of God went I, in relation to Ponting: fortunately, I kept it as a proceeding in Parliament. But what should people do in such circumstances? Some might argue that the Ponting trial, and what Massiter and Tisdall did, were in the public interest; that too is controversial. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) made a legitimate, fair and pertinent intervention, but, as I have said, this is a grey area.
You asked me to be brief, Madam Speaker, but may I have one last go at the Leader of the House while the House is quiet? I feel that this question is very important. I genuinely do not understand the position.
It is said that the Government knew about the matter in the middle of May, when it was the subject of considerable discussion among members of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to the letters, but he and I know—as will anyone else who reads them—that it was not just a case of Ministers dropping off odd letters; there was intense discussion in the Government.
At the beginning of the debate, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury to ask, "What on earth


is the relevance of time?" Let me say to the Leader of the House—gently, I hope—that that is exactly what bothers us. The reason why we went on about time at the very beginning is our unworthy suspicion—we may be told that it is misplaced, but we feel it nevertheless—that the Government thought, "Ah: in extremis, we now have knowledge of the forged letter." That knowledge, thought the Government, would keep The Guardian quiet, and would stop it asking all sorts of questions about other matters. The Government would have something on The Guardian, and could exert pressure on it.
"Blackmail" is an unparliamentary word, and I will not use it.

Mr. David Shaw: The hon. Gentleman just has.

Mr. Dalyell: No, I will not use it. The tone of my speech is serious, not yah-boo.
Let me, as courteously as I can, invite the Leader of the House to give his parliamentary colleagues of all parties some explanation of why we are presented with such urgency in November, when the facts were known in May. I think that he owes it to us.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promise to be exceedingly brief. Let me say in passing that I hope never to suffer the experience undergone by my old and hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in 1968, when he appeared at the Bar of the House.
As what I might modestly call a lesser light in this place, I am anxious to make a point. I entered the Chamber today with an open mind. In my view, Mr. Preston has behaved in a dishonourable and foolish way; I remember being deeply dismayed by his actions all those years ago when he failed to protect a young girl whom he should have protected, although he might have suffered in prison for any length of time. He behaved dishonourably then; recently, he behaved in an equally dishonourable way.
Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has not convinced me. I came here with the thought that I might abstain, but I intend to vote against the motion, because I feel that Conservative Members have left unanswered questions relating to what can be described only as a most unseemly affair. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow was right to ask the Leader of the House the reason for the unaccountable delay between mid-May and early November. There can be no excuse for such a delay, and—although I have no sympathy for Mr. Preston—I believe that some kind of cover-up is going on.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Godman: I will, but my hon. Friend must be brief, because I have promised to speak briefly.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that a further cause for concern is the conduct of the debate during the past 45 minutes, when I have been listening to it? We have seen the conviction of a person before that

person has even been tried; and he is to be tried by a Committee that is politically motivated. That cannot be open and fair judgment, in any event.

Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend has put it in a nutshell: this man is having to endure a political trial, and I think that the House has behaved badly—or it will behave badly if it approves the motion.
Mr. Preston has suffered a tongue-lashing from you, Madam Speaker, and you are a formidable lady in every respect. He deserved it—

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member flatters me.

Dr. Godman: I assure you that I am no flatterer, Madam Speaker. I, too, have felt the sharp edge of your tongue, for far less serious acts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am getting on with it. I am saying—as one of the lesser lights of this place—that it will do itself a disservice if it votes for the motion. I believe that this man has been found guilty without a chance to defend himself. Perhaps a written letter of apology to you, Madam Speaker, would suffice.

Mr. David Shaw: He has admitted it.

Dr. Godman: He has admitted it, in another place. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) pointed out, this is a political trial, and I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the motion.

Mr. Wilshire: Hon. Members have pressed me to clarify two brief points. First, I was asked when I knew about the matter: the answer is last Sunday. Secondly, I was asked whether I was in touch with my constituents' feelings. I have heard from six today: four were in favour and two against, which suggests to me that I have got it about right.
I learnt something today from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), and I am rather glad that I have never stayed at the Ritz hotel in Paris. Other than that, it simply remains for me to say that, when stripped of all the rhetoric, the facts are clear and simple. There was an abuse of the House; it is documented, and has been admitted. When stripped of all the point-scoring, there is a large measure of agreement across the Floor of the House, and I therefore invite my hon. Friends to agree with me and Opposition Members to agree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 38.

Division No. 339]
[6.00 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Alexander, Richard
Baldry, Tony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alton, David
Barron, Kevin


Ancram, Michael
Bates, Michael


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bellingham, Henry


Arbuthnot, James
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Blair, Tony


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blunkett, David


Atkins, Robert
Body, Sir Richard


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas






Booth, Hartley
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gill, Christoper


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, Sir John


Bright, Sir Graham
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth; N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Burns, Simon
Gunnell, John


Burt, Alistair
Hague, William


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanson, David


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cash, William
Harvey, Nick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Nick


Chidgey, David
Hawksley, Warren


Churchill, Mr
Hayes, Jerry


Clappison, James
Heald, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Colvin, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Congdon, David
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Hicks, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Horam, John


Cormack, Patrick
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Couchman, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cox, Tom
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cran, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hoyle, Doug


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Day, Stephen
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Dicks, Terry
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Dixon, Don
Hunter, Andrew


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hutton, John


Dover, Den
Jack, Michael


Duncan, Alan
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dunn, Bob
Jenkin, Bernard


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffery


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Eggar, Tim
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Elletson, Harold
Jowell, Tessa


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Key, Robert


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Evennett, David
Knapman, Roger


Fabricant, Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Fishburn, Dudley
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Forman, Nigel
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Forth, Eric
Knox, Sir David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


French, Douglas
Legg, Barry


Fry, Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward


Gale, Roger
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Gallie, Phil
Lidington, David


Gardiner, Sir George
Lightbown, David





Luff, Peter
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lynne, Ms Liz
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maclean, David
Sims, Roger


Maddock, Diana
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Madel, Sir David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Soames, Nicolas


Malone, Gerald
Spearing, Nigel


Mans, Keith
Speed, Sir Keith


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marlow, Tony
Spink Dr Robert


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spring, Richard


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sproat, Iain


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stephen, Michael


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Merchant, Piers
Streeter, Gary


Miller, Andrew
Sweeney, Walter


Mills, Iain
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tapsell, Sir peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thomason, Roy


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Sir Donald


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thurnham, Peter


Norris, Steve
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Olner, William
Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tredinnick, David


Ottaway, Richard
Trend, Michael


Page, Richard
Trimble, David


Paice, James
Trotter, Neville


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tyler, Paul


Pawsey, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Vaz, Keith


Pickles, Eric
Viggers, Peter


Pike, Peter L.
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Ward, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Prescott, John
Waterson, Nigel


Radice, Giles
Watts, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Rendel, David
Whitney, Ray


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Whittingdale, John


Richards, Rod
Widdecombe, Ann


Robathan, Andrew
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wilkinson, John


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Willetts, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wilshire, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rooker, Jeff
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wolfson, mark


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wood, Timothy


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sackville, Tom
young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Bowen Wells




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bermingham, Gerald


Ainger, Nick
Callaghan, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cann, Jamie


Barnes, Harry
Chisholm, Malcolm


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy






Dalyell, Tam
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Enright, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Etherington, Bill
O'Brien, Michael(N W'kshire)


Flynn, Paul
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Galloway, George
Purchase, Ken


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Randall, Stuart


Gordon, Mildred
Sedgemore, Brian


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Soley, Clive


Hardy, Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Hood, Jimmy
Winnick, David


Livingstone, Ken
Wise, Audrey


Loyden, Eddie
Wray, Jimmy


Mackinlay, Andrew



MacShane, Denis
Tellers for the Noes:


Madden, Max
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Mahon, Alice
Mr. Ronnie Campbell

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Local Government

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I beg to move,
That the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

Madam Speaker: With this we shall also discuss the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) (Construction and Property Services) Order 1994.

Mr. Jones: The orders seek to extend the scope of compulsory competitive tendering to legal and construction and property services of local authorities and other bodies. They will also extend CCT to further manual services—supervision of on-street parking, vehicle fleet management and security work. They are the first of the new services to be exposed to competition, as promised in the November 1991 White Paper "Competing for Quality".
Compulsory competitive tendering has proved an excellent vehicle for testing the calibre of in-house staff. It has been with us now for 14 years. I am sure that many will acknowledge that it has led directly to better value public services. Independent research carried out for the Government has found that, so far, competition in the provision of local services has produced average cost savings of about 7 per cent. a year, with the biggest savings in those services that attracted the biggest competitive response. Those savings far outweigh initial tendering costs. However, that is only half the story because the same research shows that CCT has also led to better quality services flowing from organisational and managerial improvements within local government—not increased bureaucracy, but better management. It is all those benefits that we wish to bring to local authority professional services.
Local authorities of all political colours nowadays are adopting a refreshingly undogmatic approach to securing efficient services. Competition is no longer a dirty word. Few still believe that efficiency automatically equates with direct provision. Indeed, no less a person than Jack Dromey of the Transport and General Workers Union has accepted that there is no ideological reason why certain services should be done by the council. At some risk, I fear that I must agree with Mr. Dromey. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with in-house service provision; indeed, some of the best work is done by local authority direct service organisations. But retaining work in house should not be an ideological goal of local authorities.
Our original proposals to extend the scope of CCT were published in November 1991, and our decisions on the way forward announced in November 1992. The services in question are at the core of the local authority and we have considered the implications carefully. The regime will be tough, but realistic and, where necessary, flexible. Local authorities will be free to organise the delivery of white-collar services in the manner most suited to their needs. We are not seeking to dictate an approach to service provision or to stifle innovation.
The regime for legal services, and construction and property services, has been developed in consultation with the local authority associations and a number of local authority staff with a wealth of practical experience in the


disciplines involved. I would like to thank them all for their time and effort. While we have not seen eye to eye on every matter, discussions in the various working groups have been constructive and I have no doubt that our approach has benefited from the associations and their members' input.
We have also spoken to the professional bodies—the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Our proposals have also been subject to public consultation. Again, while we may not have agreed with everything said, that broader discussion and input has certainly been helpful and, I am sure, contributed to the regime being both realistic and workable.
The orders have been before the House for some time and hon. Members have had time to consider them. The regime that we are putting in place has been developed paying close heed to the concerns of professionals, both inside and outside local government. I believe that it will successfully balance the need for competition with authorities' legitimate service delivery aims and objectives. It will lead to fair and even-handed competition that will benefit local authorities and the taxpayer alike.
I commend the orders to the House.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister said that he would answer the questions asked during the debate. I trust that he will listen carefully to the technical issues that have been raised.
The Minister's bullish view of compulsory competitive tendering is not borne out by the facts. I am aware that the Government commissioned a survey from the Institute of Local Government Studies, which reported as he said. But he is aware that that was a study of a fairly small sample of local authorities. There is a general presumption that, had the Government simply left things alone, without introducing any aspect of compulsion, local authorities would have achieved the same results in house simply because of the pressures on them over those years.
The Minister spoke of the refreshingly undogmatic approach of those in local government. That approach is not mirrored by the Government. We know that when the Government introduce orders such as these to the House they do so as one of their periodic fixes. The Government are hyped up and addicted, and when they cannot get the privatisation of the Post Office on the agenda, they consider instead a little privatisation in the local authority sector.
We know that the measures have little to do with efficiency. The Government were warned by two different consultancies that the costs of legal services outside local government were liable to rise compared with the costs inside local government.
The case for our debating the orders has not been made. They are part of the Government's ideological fixation, but it is a pity that the Minister and his colleagues cannot take the "refreshingly undogmatic" approach that local authorities have taken and see local government for what

it is—an important partner in the delivery of local services to our communities. I wish that the Minister would begin to see matters in that light.
It appears that the Minister wants us to quote expert for expert. He claims that the evidence supports the Government's view of CCT, but many people have said that, although the argument might apply to those services which have already been subject to CCT—very often those involving manual work, which can be repetitive and where the impact of CCT is easy to monitor—it will be considerably more difficult to impose CCT on professional services.
I cite Professor Gerry Stoker of the university of Strathclyde's department of government. He said that
with CCT moving from blue collar to white collar services, it doesn't follow that the same level of savings will be achieved.
It is incumbent on the Government to make it clear why they expect savings to be made in the professional services and not simply take us once more down an ideological blind alley.
Other voices have also been raised in concern about the impact of CCT. I quote briefly from a speech made recently to the Society of Information Technology Managers' annual conference in Edinburgh. One of the speakers said that CCT
had reduced scope for local initiative".
That is an important criticism because it came from the Department of the Environment's deputy secretary, Mr. Christopher Brearley. When someone on the inside is voicing such concerns, one assumes that Ministers share them. I do not want to involve officials in an argument in this place, but I assume that Ministers are aware of those worries. Perhaps the Minister will do the House justice and put it on record why the Department of the Environment itself is beginning to have doubts about CCT and the reduction in scope for local initiative.
That speech was reported in an article in Municipal Journal under the headline "Inflexible CCT threat to local democracy, warns mandarin". Again, I should be interested to know whether the Minister goes that far. Does he see CCT as a threat to local democracy? Is that what he wants? I hope that he will make it clear that that is not his aim.
The article details an exchange at the conference. It was suggested to Mr. Brearley that, in view of the uncertainty suffered by the work force and because of the lack of flexibility caused by CCT, it would be more sensible to reduce regulation of CCT. Mr. Brearley replied:
You'll have to ask ministers … ministers are suspicious when we talk of the need for flexibility.
Tonight we have a benchful of Ministers of one kind or another; perhaps they—individually or collectively—would like to show flexibility and even respond one after another. [Interruption.] The Minister for Local Government says that the flexibility is to be able to leave; of course, he is quite at liberty to do so. It is interesting to hear that Ministers are suspicious of the need for flexibility. I hope that the Minister will prove that those suspicions are unfounded, even if only among those whom I might call his nearest and dearest, or those who were his nearest and dearest before they made speeches to professional conferences. I hope that the Minister will recognise that some aspects of the orders require greater flexibility than has been demonstrated so far.
I now refer specifically to the services involved. It is a little surprising that there has been no attempt to justify this particular selection or ragbag of services coming before the House now. It would have been helpful had the Minister told us of the experience of the one or two remaining flagship Conservative local authorities of voluntarily market testing services. Westminster is such a council and Croydon was one in its previous incarnation, before it changed control in May and became Labour controlled. They had put some aspects of legal services into the private sector. I am told that such is the parlous state of legal services in at least part of the capital—because of the collapse of the housing market and the need for lawyers to earn what I might describe, at least in this place, as an honest crust— that private sector lawyers are interested in taking up the contracts. The Minister should have said at least a little about the trade-off between cost and quality.
I believe that the Department of the Environment is prepared to consider the need to ensure quality in respect of professional services. During the passage of the Local Government Act 1992, we debated quality and the dual envelope concept which was later dropped because it was recognised that it was not the most sensible way to deal with quality. We need a reassurance that quality in legal services will be on the agenda from the start.
It is partly because there are doubts about quality that a significant number of people have questioned whether the move towards CCT with regard to legal services and professional, construction and property services is consistent with efficiency. The Government commissioned Kieran Walsh, the professor of local government at the Institute of Local Government Studies, to carry out a survey. He has recently written about the need to maintain core services within local government and the importance of ensuring that local government has sufficient professional in-house competence to operate as a local authority, not simply as the managing structure for disparate businesses. I hope that the Minister will at least comment on that point because it is intimately connected with the arguments and technical debate about how many services should be subject to CCT.
The Minister said that there had been meetings between the Department of the Environment and other bodies about legal services and CCT. He almost said that there had been some agreement, although I am sure that some bodies such as the Law Society and local authority associations might be surprised to hear that there had been a great meeting of minds. However, it is fair to put it on the record that local authority associations accept that a number of the matters that they raised were recognised and acted on. Having put that on the record, I must say that there are still some basic problems in this respect.
The Government employed two consultancies—PA Consultants in 1991 and Coopers and Lybrand more recently—which both reported that CCT would in all likelihood mean that the cost of legal services would rise for local authorities. The Law Society felt that there were two flaws in the proposals. The first was that there would be a "crowding out" in respect of legal services, whereby ordinary people could not gain access to lawyers because local authorities were employing them. Secondly, and perhaps more significant, it felt that CCT in this instance might compromise lawyers if the local community felt

that they were heavily in alliance with the local authority and therefore unable to offer them unbiased advice in any action that they wanted to take against the authority.
The real doubts that local authorities still have relate first to the time scale and secondly to the 45 per cent. cut-off point for the work to be tendered out. No doubt the Minister will say to the House that the Government have already relaxed a little on the time scale. I accept that, but there are still concerns about the short time scale being imposed on local authorities.
The Government have moved the deadline for legal services to April 1996, but the local authorities are saying that it would be helpful and in everyone's interests if a further relaxation of that time scale could be considered. As the issues have not yet been decided, I hope that the Minister will at least agree to take them away and consider the possibility of a further six months' remission.
Equally, the size of the competitive requirements worries local authorities and the local authority associations. The Minister will be aware that PA Consultants originally recommended that 33 per cent. of services be made available for the tendering process. The Government increased that to 45 per cent. One of PA Consultants' arguments in favour of a 33 per cent. level concerns the difficulty that local authorities will have in hitting a precise figure, which means that they will need to over-tender to be certain to fall within the guidelines.
It is being argued that a 45 per cent. requirement is harsh anyway. I shall say more about that in a moment. However, as well as being harsh it is even more unwieldy simply because of the fluctuations in the need for legal services over time.
The main argument against the 45 per cent. requirement is that it is onerous anyway and forces local authorities to put out to tender more services than is helpful. That will threaten local authorities' ability to run a core legal service, which is not simply a professional and technical service, there to be hired at will, but is part of the way in which a council relates to its corporate duties as a local authority. I hope that the Minister will consider that argument carefully. It has been put to him before, and I hope that he will comment on it tonight, if only to say that he will take the issue away and reconsider it.
The Minister will know that similar arguments about the time scale have been raised in connection with the next area—construction and property services. He has been asked whether such haste is necessary in implementing the tendering process. And again, perhaps the more important issue concerns the specification that 65 per cent. of work must be tendered out. There is concern about the "de minimis" threshold for the minimum percentage of work that local authorities must tender.
The local authorities have argued consistently that some areas of work should be excluded from the tendering block, because they are integral to authorities' democratic functioning or strategic policy making, or because they are essential for maintaining an expert client function able to liaise with consultants, or because they have to be retained in house on the grounds of public interest and probity.
I hope that the Minister will accept, as I believe the Government already have, that there is an argument that at least some of those areas of work should be excluded. The reason why I want to push the Minister to reconsider


the 65 per cent. limit is explained partly by a survey conducted by the local authority associations, which found that in a significant minority of local authorities—38 per cent.—the client core functions represented significantly more than 35 per cent. of construction and property services.
I hope that the Minister accepts the case that there is a need for a core service. If he does, I hope, too, that he will recognise that if local authorities say that core services account for more than 35 per cent., he needs to reconsider the specification.
When the Minister said that considerable consultation on professional construction and property services had taken place with the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Royal Institute of British Architects, he seemed to suggest that there was a degree of agreement among those bodies with the way in which the Government were going. It is worth placing on record the fact that at no point did the professional bodies express any support for the tendering process. In fact, they all oppose it, and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that.
The next area consists of security services, vehicle fleet management and the supervision of parking. The Minister said that there had been considerable dialogue about that with various bodies. That may have been true for legal services and professional construction and property services, but there is a feeling that there was little dialogue about the other activities, and little opportunity for local authorities and others to make their views known.
For example, although the consultation document appeared before Christmas last year, the draft order laid in June this year contains considerable changes, and even now there are many areas in which local authorities are not sure of the position regarding the precise implementation of tendering.
A letter of reply was sent to the secretary of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities from the director of local government within the Department of the Environment, Mrs. McDonald. It said:
As you will by now be aware, we have debates in both Houses on the draft Order timetabled this week"—
the letter was dated 31 October—
Once the House has approved the Orders we will lay the timetable Regulations. Although this is slightly later in the day than we might have hoped, local authorities have been well aware of our intentions for some time, and details were confirmed in the Minister's announcement of 14 June when the Order was tabled. There is no reason why they could not have begun planning for CCT, and indeed I know a number are well advanced in their preparations".
That might seem fine at first sight, but the Minister must realise that there is still considerable uncertainty about how tendering in those three different areas will operate in practice. For example, the AMA wrote to the Department of the Environment on 16 August asking whether about 15 aspects of security services—I shall not read them all into the record—would be exempted from the tendering process on the ground that each consisted of works carried out under byelaws that gave local authorities specific powers, such as powers of arrest, which could not be passed on to private contractors.
That letter was written on 16 August, but the AMA has not yet received a reply. The official Department line is that enough notice was given, and that would be reasonable had the Department given proper notice, such as a response to questions involving the technical detail that local authorities really need before beginning the tendering process. With no attempt to frustrate the impact of the orders, local authorities are entitled to say that they need time to implement them.
Specifically, the timetable for the three areas of security services, vehicle fleet management and supervision of parking means that the metropolitan authorities and the London boroughs will have to begin the CCT process by October 1995. The local authority associations and the local authorities feel that that is much too tight a timetable. They reckon that it takes at least a year for authorities to advertise the contracts, prepare the specifications and interview the contractors.
I believe that in the past the Department itself has accepted that a year is the minimum period—the Minister can contradict me if I am wrong. As a matter of simple record, it is now November 1994, and if the process is to start by October 1995 local authorities have less than a year.
As we saw with legal services and property services, the Government are being asked to allow some movement on the timetable. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider that request. Some adjustment is necessary if things are to be done properly and if the local authorities and local authority associations involved are to have the answers that they need from the Department in order to make real sense of the tendering process.
There are specific questions on security services, some of which, perhaps, the Minister cannot answer tonight. But, certainly, he has at least to allow for the fact that local authorities are asking legitimate questions. Greenwich council, for example, raised an issue about its parks police because they have been given powers of arrest under a byelaw. That power of arrest is not transferable to a private contractor. Greenwich sought to have answered, for itself and on behalf of other local authorities, how that would impact on exemption from the tendering process. I believe that it received a reply today. However, the Minister will understand that, since the order is going through Parliament tonight and went through another place two days ago, that reply is quite late in the day, even for Greenwich, and it will be quite some time before other local authorities know the situation or the answer given to Greenwich.
Birmingham council also wrote to the Department of the Environment seeking clarification of the role of its market inspectors, who have similar powers to the parks police, and asking whether they would be exempted. As I understand it, even as of today, it is still awaiting a reply. So I hope that the Minister accepts that, while some may have criticisms—and those criticisms have been made—of the CCT process in general, such technical questions about the timetable for consultation on legal and property services are important. The amount of those two services which will be put out to tender is also important and I hope that the Minister will consider them in particular.
Precisely because the local authority associations do not feel that they have had time for consultation in other areas, such as security services, vehicle fleet management and supervision of parking, and because the timetable is so tight, I hope that the Minister will agree to be


flexible—that flexibility which he so commended for others—and will promise tonight to consider seriously the complaints made by the local authorities and see whether there can be some easement in the process. If nothing else, that will allow the tendering process to be done in a way that the Minister himself would want—one that makes sense for local communities and for local efficiency, not one which is simply there because it is necessary to push the orders through at speed.

Mr. David Rendel: As we all know, it is getting towards the end of the Session. I am not sure how many hon. Members were still in the House at 4 am, as I was.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: indicated assent.

Mr. Rendel: Those who were—the Minister indicates that he was one of them—will no doubt be beginning to feel that we are getting towards the end of another long day, so I do not intend to detain the House for long.
One or two arguments concerning the orders need to be rehearsed. Most of the main arguments have been rehearsed before—in the House and elsewhere—but, sadly, until now, whenever compulsory competitive tendering has been discussed they have not won the day. The Government have used their majority to push through CCT in the face of arguments that, I believe, should have triumphed.
There are, in fact, some good arguments in favour of competitive tendering by local authorities. It allows local authorities to compare the quality, standard and price of their services with those of outside contractors, and that is very welcome because comparison can throw up new ideas about how services can best be delivered. Indeed, such comparison could even throw up ideas for entirely new services.
Such comparison can also reveal—I imagine that to some extent this is what the Minister was referring to in opening—wasteful spending, which can then be eliminated. There is no question but that, when competitive tendering has been properly used, some wasteful spending has been eliminated.
In addition, outside contractors may have particular expertise over and above that normally available to an authority. The opportunity to choose between its own expertise and that of an outside contractor can only increase the likelihood of an authority improving the value for money that it obtains for the services it provides. The best local authorities, with my party's full support, have always been prepared to consider increasing the use not only of contractors but of their own employees for many of their services.
That is not the whole argument. The problem, which my colleagues and I have highlighted time and again and which we have always seen in the CCT policies of the Government, lies in the compulsory nature of those policies—it is the first "C" that needs to be removed—and especially in the regulations on how the tendering process is to be judged.
Those of us who have worked in local authorities know how difficult and unfair the method of accounting for transitional costs is. It works in a way that is often extremely unfair to local authority employees who are trying to put in a tender. Indeed, an outside contractor's

bid can often appear to be cheaper, even when its real costs to an authority may prove to be more than the cost of providing and running those same services in house.
The only criterion that can, in practice, be used in deciding between tenders is the tender price. Again, those of us who have been involved, as I have, in many such negotiations know that it is well-nigh impossible to give the work to a contractor or, indeed, to an in-house group, on the grounds of quality or extent of services, even when the authority believes that that would provide better value for money.
Value for money surely should be the ultimate criterion, not simply the tender price. Those of us who have been involved in local authorities have, sadly, seen all too many examples of services costing more as a result of competitive tendering, or have seen either the level or quality of services suffer. In my authority of Newbury, almost without exception, when services have been awarded to a contractor the price has not been lowered as a result. If it has lowered, it has been only because the level of services has fallen.
There are further problems with compulsory competitive tendering, such as the accountability of services to a local authority. Accountability is inevitably reduced when a service is contracted out. We should highlight that matter—especially tonight—when we are considering legal services. One of the most fundamental needs of any member of a local authority is the certainty of obtaining objective, fair and honest legal advice from the authority's legal officers. The loyalty that an employee feels if he is directly employed by the authority must surely be far greater than his loyalty if he is indirectly employed through a contractor. That loyalty in an area such as legal advice is extremely important. As a member of a local authority, I would never like to feel that all my legal advice would be provided through contracted-out services.
We must also consider local independence. One of the Government's hallmarks is the centralisation of services. The destruction of so much local independence has been one of the worst features of the past 15 years. If things were going wrong in a local authority—the Minister has said that some authorities have been able to make services more cost-effective and more efficient by tendering—the Government should have solved that problem not by centralising power in Whitehall and Westminster but by making local government more accountable. That is where the Government have fallen down so badly.
The Government are very much a top-down Government; we would like to see government from the bottom up. This is a centralising Government who believe that only central Government know best. That is their approach, but local elections up and down the country have shown that, in practice, people think the opposite—that, on the whole, central Government know less than local government.
An example of that is the way in which the Conservative party now controls just one county council, whereas the Liberal Democrats currently control four—and that figure may well rise fairly shortly. We believe


that local people should be allowed to choose their own way forward because they are the best judges of their own needs.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rendel: I am just about to finish.
That is an important principle for the Liberal Democrats and it should be an important principle for the Government.

Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is clear that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) is not giving way. I call Mr. Rendel.

Mr. Rendel: I have finished, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: With the leave of the House, I wish to reply.
The hon. Members for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said that one of the "Cs" in CCT should be dropped. I do not agree that the same results would have been achieved without the compulsory element. Local councillors and local officers to whom I have spoken since I have been a Minister, and in my many years as a councillor and a Member of this House, have confirmed that the discipline of having to prepare specifications and judging and monitoring tender results produces huge benefits, quite apart from cost savings.
I do not believe that CCT is exclusively about savings, although of course we are delighted by the savings that have occurred and the benefits that they have brought to council tax payers. Compulsory competitive tendering involves managers and elected representatives in thinking from basics about the level of service that they want to deliver, how that can be achieved and how they are going to judge the results. That is not a threat to local democracy because local democracy must be about elected representatives taking decisions about standards for their areas.
The hon. Member for Newbury referred to the London borough of Richmond, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats. When I talked to councillors and housing officers in Richmond about CCT for housing management, they said that they were involving tenants on a large scale in an attempt to decide the level of service that should be prescribed in the tender. That enhances local democracy, and such practices are being used not only in Richmond but in many authorities of various political persuasions.

Mr. Rendel: Why should CCT be compulsory? Should not such matters be left to authorities such as Richmond, which in any event probably would have opted for that route?

Mr. Jones: The London borough of Richmond has been controlled by the Liberal Democrats for several years and it was controlled by the Conservatives prior to that, but what I have described did not take place until CCT arrived on the scene. I believe that CCT has concentrated minds wonderfully, to the benefit of the

ultimate client whom we should all be serving—in the case of housing management, the tenant and, with other services, different customers.
The hon. Member for Stretford referred to flexibility. We have tried to approach these matters flexibly. That is the underlying rationale for the percentage approach and for not trying to draw too rigidly the line between the client side and the contractor side. Different authorities will want to approach that in different ways. That is as true of the construction professions as it is for legal services.
I cannot accept the view of the hon. Member for Newbury that we cannot obtain independent advice from a lawyer unless he is directly employed by an authority. That is clearly not true of counsel's opinion, which local authorities seek all the time on specialist issues. It is also not true in respect of run-of-the-mill legal advice, although it is clearly handy to have advice on hand within a local authority and the orders make provision for that.
The hon. Member for Stretford referred to quality. Quality can be very subjective. What some people may refer to as quality others would not. With the professional bodies, we have tried to develop an approach to defining and judging quality. We have been working with the Royal Institute of British Architects on guidance for obtaining architectural services through CCT. We have also been working with the Construction Industry Council on guidelines for value assessment for CCT and with the Association of Consulting Engineers on value assessment and the selection of consulting engineers. That is a very good way of going about it.
It may be possible to extend those principles further because quality is important. I was very closely associated with total quality management and BS5750 and BS7750 until I became a Minister. I welcome the focus on quality.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: If quality matters in professional services, it also matters in blue-collar or manual services. Can quality criteria be built into those services?

Mr. Jones: I should like to think that there is already such a criterion because, for example, specifications lay down how often refuse collections should be carried out and the standards to which streets should be cleaned. It is more straightforward to lay down such conditions in the original specifications for blue-collar services than it is for professional services.
The hon. Member for Stretford raised a specific point about security and referred to a point about the London borough of Greenwich that affects other authorities as well. I recognise that competition may not always be appropriate for local authority security work. That is why we are considering a specific exclusion from CCT for certain byelaw enforcement work. We have already sought the local authority associations' views on that and expect to introduce detailed proposals shortly. I give an undertaking to look at those matters against the background of the timetable and I will contact the hon. Member for Stretford when I have formed a definitive view.
I find it difficult to understand how people can accuse the Government of being dogmatic in their approach to CCT. I served on a local authority virtually constantly from the age of 21 until I became a Member of this House. I cannot say that I came across a local authority that did everything by direct labour or everything by private


contractor. We are talking about how to draw a boundary between what is done by the private sector and what is done in house.
We can approach the matter ideologically by allowing a local authority to say, "Well, we think that this should be done by our direct labour department," or "This should all be done by contract," or it can be achieved by more objective means by laying down a specification and inviting tenders against that specification, evaluating them and awarding a contract to the organisation, whether it is a direct labour organisation or a private contractor, 'which fulfils the specification in the best way. That is a very undogmatic approach and it has delivered considerable benefits. That is why I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

Ordered,
That the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) (Construction and Property Services) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 20th July, be approved.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

Statutory Instruments, &c

Madam Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together motions 5 to 12.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Metrication) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 19th July, be approved.

That the draft Weights and Measures (Metrication) (Miscellaneous Goods) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 19th July, be approved.

That the draft Units of Measurement Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 19th July, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

INCOME TAX

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Kazakhstan) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Mexico) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Russian Federation) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

TRANSPORT OF ANIMALS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8441/93 and the second Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 4th July 1994, and European Community Document No. 8128/94, relating to the protection of animals during transport; and supports the Government's intention of seeking to negotiate high standards of care for animals throughout the Community during transport.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

FISHERIES POLICY

That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 19th April, relating to fisheries: Spanish and Portuguese arrangements, and of European Community Documents Nos. 8940/94, relating to Community fishing areas and resources, 8941/94, relating to the Common Fisheries Policy control system, and 7541/94, relating to fisheries: multi-annual guidance programme 1993; and supports the Government's determination to secure measures to safeguard the fish stocks around the United Kingdom's shores and to protect the interest of United Kingdom fishermen through its fisheries policies.—[Mr. Kirkhope.)

Question agreed to.

Mr. Robert Nortcliff

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Peter Hardy: As I hope I shall explain in this debate, my constituent, Mr. Robert Nortcliff, has suffered an intolerable experience to which Parliament should attend. I hope that the attention that is given will lead to the view that his fate was unacceptable. I believe that my constituent acted as a responsible man in a matter that should be considered to be of serious public importance; and I believe that he has suffered a grave injustice. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to agree with my assessment. I intend to raise a number of matters relating to Mr. Nortcliff's experience, and I hope that I will receive a clear and helpful response from the Minister.
Mr. Nortcliff is an engineer. His earlier industrial career was in the mining industry, in which he reached a responsible position. That experience is relevant, for it meant that he was brought up in a culture of safety which has been responsible for the dramatic improvement in mine safety since 1947—a culture underpinned by regulation, which led to the National Coal Board becoming the safest deep-mine operator in the world. This safety record was achieved, and it continued even when production records were repeatedly shattered. There remain misgivings about recent changes, as the Minister may be aware, but the safety culture in which Mr. Nortcliff gained his first industrial experience meant that he was well aware of the importance of a proper attitude and of decent priorities.
With the closure of the collieries, Mr. Nortcliff decided to pursue a career in the oil industry. He secured employment in the middle east and gained valuable experience there. Returning to Britain, my constituent obtained a position with a contracting business engaged in offshore activity, Nabors of Aberdeen. He was engaged to work on the Elf platform Piper Bravo as an electrical supervisor. He joined the project in 1991 and was dedicated to it from the shipyard right through commissioning to production. I have heard no complaint concerning my constituent's abilities, commitment or expertise.
Unfortunately, Mr. Nortcliff observed dangers and an inadequate response to the arrangements made to safeguard those employed on the platform, and he felt that he had to draw the attention of the management of his company and of the platform's proprietors, Elf, to the risks that he perceived arising from the practices that he observed.
Mr. Nortcliff's oral representations and advice had little or no effect. He then submitted a written memorandum, again achieving little—except perhaps a degree of irritation on the part of the people who should have paid much more attention to his advice. The memorandum was dated 24 February 1993. It pointed out that proper technical judgment had been ignored in the interests of production. He felt that the contracting company, Nabors, was too ready to ignore relevant technical advice.
Not long after, my constituent found that his desk had been moved to another room, but he continued to work with diligence and enthusiasm even though there was little change in his employer's approach. Cynics will know how to respond to the fact that, at the next employer appraisal, it was noted that Mr. Nortcliff's performance had dropped remarkably. That was the first sign that he had of any employer dissatisfaction with his work, and it may have

been related—I believe that it was—to the fact that he had drawn senior management's attention to certain deficiencies, submitted in the written memorandum.
My constituent took the view that this criticism was related to the fact that his professionally necessary and technically competent memorandum had created resentment, perhaps because it was seen as a challenge to those who were not paying adequate regard to the permit-to-work system which is supposed to govern the conduct of operations on a platform.
Mr. Nortcliff then felt that he had little alternative but to inform the Health and Safety Commission's offshore division of his concerns. This was after Nabors had suggested that he move to another oil field. It suggested that he went to the Ninian field, a much older, declining field. Mr. Nortcliff, who was passionately involved and interested in the development at Piper Bravo, felt it right to decline this offer.
Then, in December last year, my constituent was told that he was no longer the Elf Piper Bravo electrical supervisor and that he had to transfer to the Ninian field. He then appealed to his employers and asked that they look into his safety concerns again, pointing out to them that he would have to refer the matter to the Health and Safety Executive if things were not put right. Nabors suggested that he had no proof and that he could not substantiate his fears. The company stood by its decision to replace him as electrical supervisor. I contend that Mr. Nortcliff had no alternative but to draw these serious matters to the attention of the Health and Safety Executive.
My constituent was most concerned and felt, given the company's insistence that he be degraded and removed, that he had no choice, in his own interests, but to inform the relevant parts of the media about his employer's actions. Apparently a senior member of staff at Nabors told him, "You must do what you feel you must do." He did, and immediately informed the relevant newspapers.
The HSE continued its investigation and Mr. Nortcliff remained suspended while it proceeded. Meanwhile, Nabors continued to deny that his suspension had any connection with his removal from the platform or his referral of these matters to the HSE. However, Mr. Nortcliff feared that the conclusions of the health and safety examination would result in his dismissal.
At this point Mr. Nortcliff contacted me, and I wrote to the managing director of Nabors, Mr. Heidt, about my constituent's position. Mr. Heidt replied:
There is no question of Mr. Nortcliff being disciplined for his disclosures to the Health and Safety Executive.
A very short time later, however, Mr. Nortcliff was dismissed on the ground that he had spoken to the media in breach of his contract. He does not deny that there was a breach of his contract, but he did inform Nabors of his intention to release the information, and he still believes—I agree with him—that he had no alternative but to pursue that course of action.
Most fair-minded people, knowing the treatment that he received, would consider that he acted quite properly. As a qualified, skilled and experienced engineer Mr. Nortcliff was fully aware that giving production an overriding priority above safety can cause and has caused, far too often, tragedies in industrial and offshore operations.
Hon. Members will recall that for quite a few years many of us felt that the HSE's role should be extended to cover North sea operations. The accident rate offshore justified


our call. Many hon. Members will know of constituents who suffered death or injury offshore. That concern led to calls from many of us for improved safety checks—apparently those requests went unheard and unheeded for a long time.
I was concerned not least because of an earlier tragedy when a fine young man from my constituency lost his life on Piper Alpha. I recall that I sought to comfort his bereaved parents by saying that that tragedy would lead to an improved safety regime offshore, which would mean that many more lives would be saved. Yet here we are, a few years later, and I am describing a case concerning not Piper Alpha but Piper Bravo.
The health and safety investigation was concluded in March and further unsatisfactory developments followed. I understand that Nabors claimed that the health and safety report gave it a clean bill of health; in effect implying that Mr. Nortcliff's representations were utterly unfounded. The person responsible for that claim was the personnel manager, Mr. Paterson. He was Mr. Nortcliff's superior and was the official who had instructed Mr. Nortcliff to leave Piper Bravo and transfer to the Ninian field.
I then wrote to Nabors about Mr. Nortcliff's position. I was unaware then that the same Mr. Paterson would also serve as judge and jury as well as supervisor and reporter.
Following Mr. Nortcliff's dismissal, I expressed serious concern to the company and I said that I thought the case should be aired in the House of Commons—perhaps after Mr. Nortcliff's dismissal had been considered by the employment appeal tribunal. I was then astonished to receive a letter from Nabors' solicitor, Mr. J.K. Tierney of Paul and Williams, of Aberdeen. He stated that Nabors would defend the case of unfair dismissal. He also went on to state:
 I also consider that it would be inappropriate for the matter to be raised in the House of Commons, but this is doubtless a matter which is governed by the House's own rules of procedure.
I found that response astonishing because that solicitor should have known that whether powerful individuals or organisations like it or not, the House provides an opportunity for the plight, difficulties or injustices experienced by our constituents to be aired. We must be able to raise matters affecting our constituents, especially when they experience the type of unfairness that Mr. Nortcliff suffered. I was astonished to receive such a letter from someone who, were he a Member of the House, might possibly be called learned.
At the beginning of the long recess we were awaiting the hearing at employment appeal tribunal. Nabors had already said emphatically that it would contest the case. I welcomed that decision, because it meant that the truth would be established in a public arena. Just before the tribunal hearing, however, Nabors settled. That may have provided a little comfort and some necessary compensation to my constituent, but the case was not aired. I believe that it is right that it should be put before the House tonight.
I was grateful for the fact that the health and safety officials said that they would have been prepared to give evidence and present the facts at the tribunal—perhaps that is why Nabors was particularly eager to settle.
It is a pity that there has been no previous public examination of the case, but at least we have a modest opportunity to do so now. This debate might be the only opportunity to consider the essential purpose to which Mr. Nortcliff was dedicated.
Since I considered that my constituent's case was not wholly one for Nabors, I also sought to contact Elf, the platform operator. I did so through the Earl of Lauderdale, who has had a long honourable involvement in energy matters and with that company. I regret that its reply was unacceptable, because it sought to suggest that it considered that responsibility rested solely with Nabors. I was disturbed by that response, because I do not believe that the operators of oil installations can transfer responsibility, legal or moral, to the contractors that work for them. The senior employers at Elf, were, however, aware of the grounds for my constituent's concerns. Platform operators and major oil companies should not simply opt out of their responsibilities, especially when that could have fatal consequences. I do not believe that such a responsibility can be evaded and I regret that Elf was evasive in this case.
No one has sought to deny that Mr. Nortcliff acted responsibly, yet he was dismissed and his efforts and concerns were set at naught. The Minister might care to consider how Mr. Nortcliff felt when, having been belittled, criticised and sacked, his employers then claimed that the examination carried out by health and safety officials vindicated their actions. Mr. Nortcliff is naturally dissatisfied with the results and naturally he feels somewhat aggrieved at the response from those officials.
My constituent had asked for an investigation into several incidents, including one in October 1993 when blocks weighing around 50 tonnes smashed into the crown bumping beam, causing a good deal of damage. I am told that that was due to the fact that the protective arrangements had been deliberately shorted out, apparently with the knowledge, if not on the instructions, of the rig superintendent and of Elf.
In November 1993, operations were continued when the top drive electrical service loop was damaged. The covering on high-voltage cabling was torn and the related junction box was smashed, leaving live conductors exposed. Also in November 1993, a magnetic sensor had to be replaced on the derrick crown. As the electrical supervisor, Mr. Nortcliff proceeded in the proper manner by drawing up the necessary permit to enable that work to be done. He was told that someone else would do it, without a permit—a complete breach of safety arrangements. The job was done without machinery being isolated. We should bear it in mind that that happened on Piper Bravo, but we still remember what happened on Piper Alpha. Electrical systems should not be switched off and safety arrangements abandoned so that production may be maintained.
On another occasion, someone modified an item of electrical equipment without certification when a request for a replacement had been rejected. That suggests that economy looms rather larger than safety in the minds of some of those responsible.
I believe that any examination of those events shows that the health and safety report vindicated not Nabors, but my constituent, Mr. Nortcliff. I regret that those officials did not make it clear that it was unacceptable to suggest that Mr. Nortcliff's claims were unjustified. They should have been sufficiently responsible to set the record straight. Health and safety considerations required that Nabors put its systems right.
The report revealed an obvious awareness that production had been the overriding priority. The officials knew that the rules had been breached, so perhaps the Minister would agree that it would have been better had a


firmer line been taken at that time. The failure to do so meant that my constituent's punishment was particularly severe.
I hope that lessons have been learned and that the Minister will be able to give the House information to suggest or provide evidence that they have. I also hope that he will offer other assurances. I hope that he will assure the House that he and his Department accept that Mr. Nortcliff acted responsibly by proceeding with the complaints about conditions and practices on Piper Bravo. I hope that he will agree that it was entirely right for him to ensure that safety had a higher priority and that it is entirely right for the House to attend to the case.
I also hope that the Minister will accept that offshore employers should recognise, or if necessary be made to recognise, that production cannot command a priority over safety, as was the case on Piper Bravo. That being so, I hope that the Minister will commend Mr. Nortcliff and share my hope that a more responsible company will recognise his ability to provide a significant and professional contribution to the industry and, by implication, make it clear that both Nabors and Elf have cause for shame for their attitude.
The other day I saw a tape of a television programme, in which a leading business man, speaking at a conference some years ago, suggested that the reality of the effect of the United Kingdom's oil resource on the British economy in the 1980s was that it might better have been left in the ground. The Minister might agree that the Government's policies would have looked rather sick if that had happened. As a nation, we must accept that the resource was not put to its best use—it was as if a golden bullet emerged from the wrong end of the gun.
If a similar situation to that which my constituent tried to put right occurs offshore again, and if the nation is prepared to tolerate an inadequate emphasis being given to safety—as was the case on Piper Bravo—people such as Mr. Nortcliff ought not to bear the blame. Perhaps it should be borne not by the Health and Safety Executive but by the whole of our society, if it is prepared to tolerate such risks. My constituent has done nothing of which he should or could be ashamed. I hope that the debate will have pointed to the direction that that shame should take.
One other matter is important. I have visited several offshore establishments. Some years ago, I stayed on a platform and was greatly relieved at the concern for safety exhibited there. Some offshore companies reveal a far greater care for safety than has been demonstrated in this case. Does the Minister agree that those companies that have cared and have served priorities properly ought not to be let down because their competitors cut corners even at the risk of bringing the industry into disrepute? Will the Minister assure the House that the Health and Safety Executive will not be slow or reluctant to act with that austere sternness that past tragedies, such as Piper Alpha, necessitate?
Work on the North sea is far from land and close to hazard. It is potentially exceedingly dangerous and it is inappropriate for that danger to be compounded by inadequate priority. At least Mr. Nortcliff can be comforted by the fact that much attention has been focused on the record of his former employers and that of the operator, Elf.

I was recently greatly obliged to receive a publication called "Blowout", which describes itself as
the voice of the offshore worker".
It is a fine publication, at least as far as the presentation of Mr. Nortcliff's case is concerned.

Mr. Frank Cook: Perhaps my hon. Friend should explain that that sort of blowout is not the type to which we normally refer in the House. It is a technical term used in oil and gas fields.

Mr. Hardy: I am grateful for that intervention. I have eaten offshore and all the meals were first class. Perhaps they did not quite reach the standard of the Ritz hotel in Paris, but they were substantial—perhaps they did not cost quite so much as those at the Ritz either. I do not know what the meals were like on Piper Bravo, but on the rigs on which I have eaten they were very satisfactory. As my hon. Friend said, however, they do not justify the term "blowout", which has a different definition in this context.
The front page of today's issue of "Blowout" refers to the fact that
Nabors dodged the publicity of an industrial tribunal by settling out of court … Nabors can count itself lucky to have got off so lightly. Had the industrial tribunal gone ahead, it would have highlighted mismanagement of safety of astounding proportions. This, on the platform which is the successor to Piper Alpha and which has been held up as a shining example".
One is still left with a rather nasty taste.
The publication states that Mr. Nortcliff claims that the case reveals that
The HSE has refused to condemn actions by individuals where the law was broken … condoned actions in breach of company safety rules and procedures; and … took no cognisance of interference by his supervisors"—
in the exercise of the duties of a responsible and qualified employee. My constituent and I have much sympathy with that view. He questions the statement made by Mr. Allan Sefton, director of operations for the offshore safety division, that
Our policy is to allocate sufficient resources to investigations to determine the root cause of concerns and to ensure action is taken by duty holders to rectify conditions to prevent recurrence.
"Blowout" also states that the HSE sees its way forward by "proactive intervention", by which it means
influencing all employers and maintaining a regular presence".
That statement worries me because it is related to resources. Perhaps the Minister will assure the House that there will be no difficulty about providing adequate resources for the maintenance of official health and safety regulations offshore. Mr. Nortcliff s case emphasises the need for that.
There is a case for decent relationships. There is a role for persuasion. If the rules are broken and safety equipment is shorted or switched off, one must be willing to pursue the matter in the courts, otherwise regulation becomes diminished.
I hope that there has been no case for the diminution of safety so far in the debate and trust that the Minister's observations will take us a little further and reassure us that Mr. Nortcliff s experience is never likely to be repeated.

Mr. Frank Cook: I did not enter the Chamber determined to join the debate, but the topic is so related to my past experience that I felt compelled to comment. I appreciate the fact that the Minister kindly


agreed that I should be allowed to participate in the Adjournment debate as, under normal protocols, I would not be allowed to intervene.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) on raising this matter, which he outlined to the House with considerable skill. He presented a powerful case very clearly. I would not want to comment on it specifically, other than to emphasise the argument that ought to be emphasised—that Mr. Nortcliff had been involved in the Piper Bravo project from day one. He had been involved from the shipyard to hook-up in the North sea, which means putting pieces together in exposed conditions; to commissioning, which means bringing the piece to fruition; through to production. That displays a remarkable personal commitment. We have to understand the mentality of a construction worker if we are to understand that commitment. I say that speaking as one of them. I shall try to explain the base from which I speak.
Having taught for almost 10 years, I left the profession and became a construction worker. I did not "go into construction", as one says; I became a construction worker. That means that I became a labourer. I dug foundations, lay footings, erected scaffolding, carried the hod and generally did what was necessary. Of course, my qualifications as a schoolmaster hardly qualified me to be a construction engineer. After some years, having covered almost every job from one level to another, I became a construction project manager. I was involved in construction work as a member of senior management.
At the same time, I was a committed trade unionist. Although a project manager, I also sat as a lay member on the national executive of my trade union, which at that time was referred to as AUEW-TASS. Indeed, I served on the north regional council of the Trades Union Congress. I had several heads and I had to be very careful about which hat I put on which head at what time. As far as I am aware, I did not commit any major error. My loyalties were always clear to everyone, on whatever team, and I never betrayed anybody or any responsibility.
As a project manager, I had to employ individuals of all grades: industrial—from labourers through to engineers—administrative and managerial. I also had to look after their welfare as a responsible employer. At the same time, I had to look after the welfare of my fellow trade unionists with other employers. It was a strange position, but I managed to live with it.
Of course, there were peaks and troughs and at times I had to release personnel. I had to send them out into the wider world saying, "Sorry, we can't employ you for the moment, but as soon as we can we will let you know. If you want to come back then, you will be more than welcome." Some did not always get the "welcome" bit, but that is the way of things. At times I tried to find them other employment, which meant making contact with other employers engaged in similar work and asking them whether they could use the skills of my workers and whether they had any slots in which to place them.
It was through that process that I began to realise that some employers were not as careful or as caring as I sought to persuade my board of management to be. Those employers would cut corners, underpay and demand—it was not just a question of salami slicing—unsafe working. That frightened me so much that I stopped co-operating with them. I felt responsible for putting in jeopardy people who had worked for me and done a decent job.
All that happened between 1970 and 1975, but it leads to another aspect that is more relevant in today's world. I assure the Minister that I am making these comments in a spirit of constructive counselling. I am not making any party political comments; it is my view of how the world has gone. Employees are now required to assess the position where they work and comment on whether or not it is safe. They are required by a law that was introduced after 1979 to say to their supervisor, "Boss, this position is unsafe and therefore I will not work here until you put it right." That is what we, as legislators, have required workers to do.
On the face of it, that is a reasonable requirement to place on a mature journeyman who is experienced in the industry. What is unreasonable is to allow the employer or his representative to turn around and say to that worker, "Do it or you are finished." Yet that is what happens in numerous cases. It is all very well to say that the worker can go to an employment tribunal and gain satisfaction. That is not sufficient. First, the dangerous position—the hazardous circumstances—continues. Secondly, no matter how much compensation is awarded to someone who loses his employment, it is still an affront to his dignity.
I want to quote an example from this very place. The scaffolding erected on the Terrace for cleaning the facade was in a desperate state. Three times over a period of seven weeks I went to the Serjeant at Arms Department, which said that the Property Services Agency had been told to put it right. When I was in the construction industry, I had to ensure that the scaffolding on my sites was examined and certificated as safe every 28 days. However, there was no such requirement for the scaffolding on the Terrace because this is a Crown building. The only way that I could get redress was to come to the House on a Friday afternoon and raise a point of order with the Speaker of the day, now Lord Weatherill.
Although the Serjeant at Arms Department had responded well to my complaints on those three previous occasions, on this occasion it acted with great alacrity and when I returned to the House on the following Tuesday the scaffolding at the Commons end of the Palace was absolutely pristine—indeed, more than in Bristol fashion—up to the line separating the responsibilities of the Serjeant at Arms from those of Black Rod. The scaffolding on the other side of the line was in terrible order, and that is how it remained.
My point is that the conditions in the House largely reflect the circumstances in the North sea, which do not fall within the standards and requirements that apply on dry land. As the crew of Piper Alpha would testify, being that far out to sea calls for conditions immeasurably better than they are on dry land.
I have made my comments not in any way to provoke inter-party disagreement; that does not enter into it. I was a member of management and I was also a trade union representative. I ensured that my clients, the purchasers, got a straight deal from my employer, which was the contractor, and I ensured that the work force for which I was responsible also got a straight deal. We used to play it according to the book. It is pointless having a book unless everyone abides by it and I saw to it that everyone did his fair whack. That is the way to run things.
I offer these comments because the present climate of deregulation weakens that kind of common and reflected trust, and in the knowledge that we come here as


individual Members with a duty to represent the needs of those who send us here. It does not end there, and anyone who thinks that it does is making a great mistake.
We sit here collectively, representing a nation of people who are so diverse, with all sorts of talents, aspirations and needs. Many of those people, in our interests and in the interests of the national economy, put themselves in jeopardy day in, day out, 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 52 weeks a year out in the North sea on gas and oil installations.
I firmly believe that we have a collective duty to ensure that health and safety standards out there, perhaps beyond the 12-mile limit, are respected every bit as much as we would expect them to be in Crawley, Croydon or Crewe. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that. In that spirit I offer these comments to the Minister tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): I thank the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for raising this important issue. I shall not dwell in detail on his comments about dinners at the Ritz, except to say that my experience in that area is sadly limited. Unfortunately, no one ever thought me sufficiently important or influential to invite to the Ritz, so I bow to the hon. Gentleman's greater knowledge. However, I hope to be enjoying the cuisine of an offshore oil installation before long and I shall report to the hon. Gentleman as to whether standards have slipped.
I also thank the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) for his interesting contribution, drawing as it did on his wealth of personal experience, which is always invaluable in this subject. I assure him that when it comes to deregulation our aim is to deregulate only where burdens on industry and business are unreasonable and where the result of those burdens would be to reduce employment.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record, he will find that, particularly with regard to construction sites, we have tightened up and are significantly tightening up regulations in many areas. Health and safety regulations are now, in almost all instances, much tighter than they were a few years ago, and they continue to be tightened. We take this matter very seriously.
The hon. Member for Wentworth rightly raises an important issue. He has an enormous wealth of experience in health and safety matters, particularly onshore. Safety on offshore installations is a top priority. There can be no question about that. No one will forget the horrors of Piper Alpha and we are determined that such a tragedy will not happen again. The Government accepted every one of the 106 recommendations of the Cullen report. More than half of those have already been implemented, and we are making new regulations to implement many others. Much has already been done which will make the industry safer, but I accept that we in Government, the Health and Safety Commission and Executive and the industry must never be complacent. We must all continue to be vigilant.
The case raised by the hon. Gentleman concerns an individual worker. Individual workers are vital to safety. It is they who are exposed on the cutting edge to the

hazards. They are often best placed to identify new hazards and to suggest ways of controlling them. We strongly encourage all companies to involve their workers in safety, as responsible companies do.
I make it clear that any offshore worker who has a concern about safety should always raise it with the safety representative in the first instance and, after that, with the supervisor or manager. If those sanctions do not work and a worker is not satisfied, he can approach an HSE inspector direct. A telephone number for contacting an HSE inspector is posted on every offshore installation and callers are guaranteed anonymity if they request it. That is an important point.
It is the policy of the HSE to consider every complaint or query on offshore safety matters whether made by telephone, letter or in any other way. The HSE does not shrink from taking tough action when required.
I come now to address the two main issues raised by the case of Mr. Nortcliff. First, and perhaps most importantly, there are his concerns regarding health and safety in relation to his employer and, secondly, there is his complaint about the HSE's handling of the report into his concerns.
It was totally legitimate and right for Mr. Nortcliff to raise health and safety matters. I understand that he first raised them with safety representatives and then they and Mr. Nortcliff raised the issues with management. It was because he was not satisfied with the response from management that Mr. Nortcliff first made known his concerns to the HSE, as was his right, although I understand that no complaint was made to the HSE by any elected safety representative.
Mr. Nortcliff s written complaint was received on 17 January 1994. The HSE acted promptly in conducting a full investigation into all the issues raised in the complaint. In the course of the investigation, it made two offshore visits, had seven visits and meetings at the company's head offices and held three meetings with Mr. Nortcliff himself. All in all, some 300 staff hours were involved in investigating Mr. Nortcliff s concerns. I make that point to illustrate the fact that the HSE took the complaints seriously.
As a result, a report dated 11 March was sent to the installation owners, the drilling company which employed Mr. Nortcliff, the safety representatives on the installation and to Mr. Nortcliff himself.
As a result of its investigation the HSE required both the operator and the driller to make procedural changes to health and safety aspects of their drilling operations. Some of those had been made or were already being developed at the time of the investigation. But the fact that the HSE required action to be taken shows that Mr. Nortcliff s concerns were in large measure justified. The HSE specifically recognises that.

Mr. Hardy: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for those comments. That takes us to the point that I touched upon in my remarks: that the employer sought to create the impression that he had been given a clean bill of health by the Health and Safety Commission, inevitably implying that my constituent had acted improperly,


inaccurately or irresponsibly, when, as the Minister has shown by his recent words, the HSE exonerated my constituent, vindicating him, not his employer.

Mr. Oppenheim: It is correct to say that Mr. Nortcliff was correct in going to the HSE and his raising of the concerns was ultimately vindicated because the HSE required action. It is fair to say that in some instances the company was already taking action in some of the areas. But the bottom line is that Mr. Nortcliff was totally justified in going to the HSE with his concerns. I make that absolutely clear.
The hon. Gentleman referred to enforcement action. I understand that the HSE considered taking enforcement action, including prosecution for breaches of safety law. However, in view of remedial action which had already been taken and further action agreed by the company, it was considered that an improvement notice was not appropriate. Further, it was considered that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a prosecution case. Therefore, on the balance of evidence, and in view of the remedial action taken, it was decided not to refer the case to the procurator fiscal for possible prosecution. I stress—and in many ways, this is the most important point of all—that the HSE is continuing carefully to monitor the situation, to ensure that all necessary remedial action detailed in the report has been carried through.
Mr. Nortcliff s complaints about the HSE's handling of the investigation were considered in some detail not once but twice, by senior managers who were not involved in the original case. After receiving his copy of the HSE's report, Mr. Nortcliff telephoned an offshore safety division principal inspector on 16 March and raised further concerns. The inspector met Mr. Nortcliff on 22 and 23 March to discuss the aspects of the HSE case with which Mr. Nortcliff was unhappy. He appeared to accept that the OSD's investigations had concentrated on the facts of the case and on the evidence from interviews with the workers and managers concerned.
Under caution, Mr. Nortcliff said that he did not wish to make a formal statement contradicting the signed statements already taken from personnel on the installation during the HSE investigation. However, the HSE agreed to explore further two issues—whether a certificate of fitness had been invalid during the lead-up to one incident, and drilling procedures. Additional HSE inquiries did not reveal evidence of offences and Mr. Nortcliff was told that on 29 March.
Mr. Nortcliff then made a formal complaint about the way in which the division had conducted its investigation. As a result, all relevant papers were reviewed by the senior OSD manager responsible for the team that had carried out the investigation. He wrote to Mr. Nortcliff on 27 May indicating that he believed that the investigation had been properly conducted and that the companies concerned were now taking appropriate remedial action.
As Mr. Nortcliff remained unsatisfied, the division's operations director asked senior personnel, who had not been involved with the investigation, to review the papers.

The operations director wrote to Mr. Nortcliff in late July, stating that he was satisfied that the HSE had investigated the complaints properly. Mr. Nortcliff replied on 1 August, expressing continued dissatisfaction. The operations director responded on 5 September, setting out fully his reasons for believing that appropriate action had been taken and stating that he considered the matter closed. A further letter from Mr. Nortcliff, dated 12 September, refused to accept that decision.
I give those details not because they will be new to the hon. Gentleman but because they show how seriously the HSE takes any complaints about its handling of investigations, and that it took that particular set of complaints most seriously.
As to Mr. Nortcliff s original health and safety concerns and his subsequent complaint about the HSE's handling of the report, I am satisfied—having talked to the officials responsible—that the HSE acted in a fully professional and satisfactory manner. However, I repeat that that does not detract from the important point that Mr. Nortcliff was right and justified to raise the issues in the first place.
It is most regrettable that Mr. Nortcliff found himself out of a job. He was absolutely right to raise the issues that he did. Safety was at risk, and as a result of Mr. Nortcliff s action, steps were taken to correct safety deficiencies. I cannot comment in detail on the rights and wrongs of Mr. Nortcliff s dismissal. That matter would have been for the industrial tribunal to decide, had Mr. Nortcliff chosen to continue his complaint. If he had done so and won, it would have been open to the tribunal to order his employers to reinstate or to re-engage him, and to award significant additional compensation if they had refused. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Nortcliff chose instead to accept settlement, and he was of course entirely free to do so.
I assure both hon. Members that the Government continue to regard safety as paramount. It is essential that the HSE retains the confidence of the offshore work force, so that all employees are able to exercise their legal right and their duty to contribute to the better management of offshore health and safety.
As I made clear but will repeat, because it is important, any worker may raise a safety issue with the HSE in confidence, via the use of an on-site telephone if he or she wishes. It is of course essential that a worker raising a safety issue should not feel that he or she is likely to be prejudiced or victimised in any way. The Government recognised legitimate concerns in that respect, and introduced legislation last year to extend protection against dismissal for reasonably raising health and safety issues with an employer to all workers, not just safety representatives. Industrial tribunals will take that matter very seriously. The Government also consider it to be of immense seriousness and have taken steps to deal with the problem. I will make it my personal business to ensure that that remains the case in future. I thank both hon. Gentlemen for raising the subject in the way that they did.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eight o'clock.